Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com177
<lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:

> Deborah – you seem to be mixing the abilities of the file format with the
> specific implementation choices of an author using that format.
>

Nope. ;)

Quoting the beginning of the thread: Ivan began with "A **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.

The question is, can a document be a Portable Web Document if it is not
adaptable? The answer is no.

It may be in a portable format, but it is not a portable document.

We do not need to define portability for formats, here. That is the
responsibility of the keepers of the various format standards. We need to
define what are the functional requirrements of a thing we call a "portable
web document."

The format is portable, because it allows the content to be used in all of
> those environments in a common manner.   The fact that a given author of
> content for that format chose to do something strange (be it colors or
> offscreen or whatever) has NOTHING to do with the formats ability to be
> portable.
>

That is true. And I am not making any assertions about the standards of the
format.

A "portable web document" is adaptable. This means it must be written in a
format which allows adaptable encoding.

Deborah