- From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:46:51 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Peter Brantley <peter@archive.org>
- CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
I have to disagree with you Peter, as you are putting a VERY narrow definition on Portability. It is about much more than network connectivity - it also addresses (or provides an architecture for) authenticity, reliability and more. Just because there is a network doesn’t mean that the same version of the specific resource is still at the same location. And while for some types of documents - that might be OK (and partially figured into the degradation discussion), there are others (such as “Documents of Records”) for which that is a non-option. Consider what would happen if you tried to show your passport to border control and the agency had moved your picture to a new location?? Leonard On 9/4/15, 11:37 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >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 I’d 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 can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t 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;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=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 15:47:22 UTC