- From: Markus Gylling <markus.gylling@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:25:42 +0100
- To: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
- Message-Id: <95A80F4E-6778-474A-9F1E-5399FCA685A3@gmail.com>
… and for those that don’t recall, the PWP doc does in fact talk generally about the need for being adaptable to the requirements of different domains in section 5.9: http://www.w3.org/TR/pwp/#models-for-embracing-domain-specific-restrictions-and-extensions <http://www.w3.org/TR/pwp/#models-for-embracing-domain-specific-restrictions-and-extensions> /markus > On 15 Dec 2015, at 14:20, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> >> On 15 Dec 2015, at 14:09, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: >> >> Why does the HTML in a PWP have to limited to a specific profile? > > Hm. Did I say that? I do not think so. > >> >> I don’t recall seeing that in any of the requirements that were put together at the beginning of the PWP process nor is there such a statement in the actual PWP “spec”. >> >> So I would put argue that PWP has no such requirement and that ANY HTML can be placed into one. >> > > What I (tried to?) say is: a *HTML* profile *may* be defined for HTML (or not, or whatever an appropriate group somewhere would do) and it is not up to PWP. Put it another way, PWP would take any HTML, whether abiding to a specific profile or not. > > Ivan > > >> Leonard >> >> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> >> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 6:48 AM >> To: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org <mailto:peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>> >> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>> >> Subject: Re: [PWP] HTML email >> Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org <mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>> >> Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:49:23 +0000 >> >> I think that the first step for something like that, if this is what we want to support, ought to be a standard HTML in email. Some sort of an HTML 'profile' (or 'vernacular'?) for email format, email clients, etc. I know that this comes up, time to time, but I have never seen any systematic work towards this. PWP, after all, is 'just' collecting mutually interdependent resources and, in this case, pivot is the HTML content, PWP would just make sure that all necessary additions would be considered as one unit… >> >> Ie, I am not sure PWP would be able to solve this particular problem per se… >> >> Ivan >> >> >>> On 14 Dec 2015, at 21:03, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org <mailto:peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear DPUB IG, >>> >>> I was wondering in how far HTML email might be an interesting use case for PWP (or at least a worthwhile discussion). >>> >>> There seem to be still a lot of challenges surrounding publication by email (CSS, webfonts, SVG etc but also on the authoring / email client side). Perhaps PWP could help here or identify important pain points? >>> >>> I'm not an expert at all in this (although I've experimented with mathematics in email as you might suspect). So I'm hoping other people might share thoughts on the topic. >>> >>> Best, >>> Peter. >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> >> >> >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 13:26:16 UTC