- From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:41:50 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Peter Brantley <peter@archive.org>
- CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, Or not : our grandchildren or grand-grandchildren may decide that in an ubiquitous network, they sometimes need for any good reason to be unplugged when reading or consuming any content Luc Le 04/09/2015 17:37, Ğ Ivan Herman ğ <ivan@w3.org> a écrit : >Thanks Peter, that is a good point. > >Maybe we have to separate things. We have a 'Web document', ie, the >uniquely identifiable interrelated resources, etc. and the we have the >Portable (Web) Document is the part on the online/offline and graceful >degradation. The concept of Web Document is something that is really for >eternity, the the concept of Portable document is only for the time until >the network is ubiquitous, etc. > >(Putting another way, our grandchildren or grand-grandchildren may decide >that the concept of Portable documents have become obsolete:-) > >WDYT? > >Ivan > > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:38 , Peter Brantley <peter@archive.org> wrote: >> >> Hello all - >> >> Thought experiment - assume the network is ubiquitous, in the nature of >> radio, and there is no barrier (technology, economic, social) to access. >> >> What is the utility, in that guise, of defining "portable" ? Is the goal >> to carve out space for a complex object that is capable of holistic >> reference? >> >> Is the issue not instead, in some way, that component resource access >> might be constrained by bandwidth, geographic restrictions (depending on >> where one is in the world), and potentially social considerations (the >> wrong video or even language in the wrong place will get one killed). >> >> Should not "portable" work both in the present world when there is >> uneven access, and one when (hopefully) inequality has been removed >> from essential connectivity? >> >> Too much focus on online/offline makes me think of a privileged world >> which sometimes travels on airplanes or rail with limited bandwidth, not >> a world in which cell towers, satellites, and balloons are beginning to >> cloud the skies. There are other issues here than just how fast the >> bytes go in the tubes. >> >> /pb >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15 7:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>> >>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting >>>>tidbits, but Iıd like to tweak it a bit >>>> >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely >>>>identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>> >>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>> >>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file >>>>format. >>> >>> Hm. That is of course true. >>> >>> >>>> So we canıt talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere >>>>fit better than ³active server infrastructure². >>>> And finally, since we donıt define ³portable² anywhere else (at least >>>>not yet), we canıt really use it in this definition. (remember what >>>>they taught you in school - you canıt define a word with itself). >>>> >>> >>> I agree with that although, at least in mathematics, such recursive >>>definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start >>>somewhere I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>> >>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that >>>your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether >>>online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be >>>the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for >>>example). >>> >>> What about: >>> >>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources >>>that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough >>>information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user >>>even if offline. >>> >>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general >>>sense, it is probably o.k.) >>> >>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not >>>in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a >>>matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the >>>font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include >>>another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also >>>include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I >>>mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the >>>user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make >>>it part of the definition. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well >>>>on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>> >>>> Leonard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to >>>>>properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of >>>>>the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the >>>>>term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more >>>>>general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>> >>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at >>>>>least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a >>>>>wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I >>>>>think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we >>>>>said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new >>>>>charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>> >>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the >>>>>concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB >>>>>paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all >>>>>live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental >>>>>question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, >>>>>different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>> >>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some >>>>>extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I >>>>>found important at least for myself. >>>>> >>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition >>>>>in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me >>>>>offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it >>>>>on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>> >>>>> [[[ >>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of >>>>>resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented >>>>>to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. >>>>>All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>> ]]] >>>>> >>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable >>>>>document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I >>>>>think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the >>>>>Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice >>>>>between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font >>>>>for some very special character sets. The document should be >>>>>considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the >>>>>latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it >>>>>is very important that the particular collection of resources should >>>>>be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>> [2] >>>>>http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;l >>>>>ist=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>> [4] >>>>>http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57n >>>>>Efq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [5] >>>>>http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;l >>>>>ist=public-digipub-ig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from >>>>>arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a >>>>>reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular >>>>>server infrastructure and, especially, without such server >>>>>infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>> >>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if >>>>>those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at >>>>>a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is >>>>>consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been >>>>>cached. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or >>>>>something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I >>>>>would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, >>>>>_should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication >>>>>not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by >>>>>"portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by >>>>>"complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what >>>>>"is" (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be >>>>>expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to >>>>>say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. >>>>>The less this is true the less we can consider the overall >>>>>publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website >>>>>(BillM) >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:42:22 UTC