W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [DPUB] packaging requirements document

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:10:38 +0000
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DE977451-E3C5-4EC7-A3C8-A9D8772871DB@adobe.com>
Not sure the best way to send feedback/comments, so I will do it here.  These are only in the order in which I found them reviewing the doc….

– Regardless of the fact that someone at the IETF thinks “archive” is the right term, in the document/publication space it is NOT.  I would strongly recommend that we NOT refer to that document or that terminology.

- I have problems with this phrase “ This is, however, different from the cached state of a networked publication, which does not have a separate existence (though can also be used offline).”.  There are many ways to cache, some of which are related to browser-based technology and some of which are not.  But all of which constitute the concept of a “cached and offline” document.   How about just removing this.  I don’t think it adds anything, certainly not at this point in the document.

- Related to the two items above, the definitions of 2 & 3 are incorrect and need to be changed to reflect the above recommendations.

- I don't believe that anyone has suggested that the transition of states “should be transparent for a reading system”.  It should be completely lossless (or better, w/o any changes) to the publication itself.  However, I would absolutely expect that an online reading system be quite different from an RS for portable content – if only because it may/will have to look inside a package (that may not exist for the online version).

- The phrase “ It should maintain its integrity over time” isn’t actually something that we, as the file format specification, have any control over. It is more about the media, systems, etc. in which the content is stored.  As such, it should be removed.

- I believe we have many more use cases.  Did you only want to put a small number here?

- Are there no other requirements for the portable state?  I believe we had some in our existing use case/requirements specs.   If not, I can think of a few that I would add here.

- In the first paragraph of Streamability, you have multiple references to HTTP, which doesn’t make any sense in the portable case (and may not in the cached case).  If you simply removed both instances of HTTP, the paragraph is more general and still makes perfect sense.   Also remember that streamability applies to various other contexts as well beyond an HTTP-based network.

- The fourth bullet in Use cases for streamability refers to EPUB inappropriately after the phase “Web Publication” - but throughout the rest of this document that is a generic term referring to both online and offline content.  Remove the (eg. EPUB) as it’s not correct here.

- The fifth bullet in Use cases for streamability doesn’t need to the second sentence, as it is implied by the first (and also introduces EPUB for no valid reason).  I would recommend removing that sentence.

- In the use cases to Stable Links, there is the parenthetical “(as opposed to the PDF)” which is not only invalid/incorrect but also not necessary.   I would remove that.

- In the Update new components only, there is a potential technical recommendation “(This can rely on functionality like HTTP 304.)" – but it’s putting the cart before the horse and may only confuse.  I would recommend that you remove it.

- In the Package in a Package section, you have “This is trivially available in online and cached states, but puts an extra requirement on portable states.”  This appears to be a copy/paste from elsewhere, as it doesn’t belong here because it’s simply not true in this case.  Please remove.

- The Access to package section also has a similar note about “trivially available” which is also not true, and I would recommend removal as well.

Other than  that – looks good!


From: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken"
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:35 AM
To: "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)"
Subject: [DPUB] packaging requirements document
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:36 AM

Hello DPUBbers,

Please review the current draft of Requirements for Web Publication and Packaging [1]. We are preparing this note to send to our colleagues who worked on Packaging on the Web [2]. Do you recommend any edits? Is this document complete?

Thank you

[1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/web-packaging/

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead

Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 16:11:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:08 UTC