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

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

From: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:21:29 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com>
CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>, "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>
Message-ID: <c3bdc271ca3349c0a07fa2971c8700cc@CAR-WNMBP-006.wiley.com>
Hi Olaf,

Is your distinction between "good" and unqualified similar to terms like "valid" or "well-formed"? If so, I think the qualification of what makes a (portable) (web) document "good" would be defined in detail in forthcoming specifications.

We are attempting to create a quick-reference glossary to enable clearer communications. I think the use of [RFC2119] language clarifies intent.

[RFC2119]. S. Bradner. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. March 1997. Best Current Practice. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 4:42 AM
To: Olaf Drümmer
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG; Leonard Rosenthol; Deborah Kaplan; Ralph Swick; Bill Kasdorf; Bill McCoy
Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)


On 08 Sep 2015, at 10:26 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com<mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote:

Might be just my very personal point of view (though stemming from having been involved in committee work for about 20 years) but unless you clearly separate one (core definition of what something is) from the other (what would be required to make 'it'  such that it has desirable characteristics ...) you might have never ending fruitless discussions for not worthwhile reason.

Anyway, I'll shut up now on this aspect...

Let us see what other people say...

Ivan



Olaf

On 8 Sep 2015, at 06:22, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:


I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms.  This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice...

Ivan




----
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 Tuesday, 8 September 2015 13:22:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC