- From: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:50:59 -0700
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADMjS0bYgn68Lv129z+BWS2CRCMFzTM1NK9he=6tSBWHXPKQTw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Leonard, yes to me the key point is your restriction that the presentational content & interactivity (the "HTML/CSS/JS") is "itself represented [as] a resource in the package". With that constraint the result, in my book, should qualify as a "Portable Web Document" (PWD), as would also a bare naked CSV file on the Web. Your example would be a somewhat app-ish PWD but that's perfectly OK to me. Whereas if the presentational content & interactivity were consed up by server processes and not represented as resources that can travel along with the rest of the CSV content, then I would not consider that to be a PWD. Basically to me if everything in its original native form is available as Web resources (which BTW is what I'm taking you to mean by "in the package") it's a PWD. If either the data or its presentation-related content/interactivity are mediated by server programs and thus their original forms are hidden away in databases or CMS's of some kind, then it's not a PWD (to me), because all you can grab and archive is a particular manifestation, not the Real McCoy ;-). --Bill --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > I am not sure where I stand on your calendar, but let me give you another > example. > > If I had a collection of data (say the results of a scientific experiment > or even my organization’s sales number) stored in the “package” as a > defined resource (say foo.csv) and the presentation of that information was > done dynamically by some set of HTML/CSS/JS that itself represented a > resource in the package. > > Is that a portable web document? (to you) > > Leonard > > From: Bill McCoy > Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM > To: Deborah Kaplan > Cc: Liam Quin, W3C Digital Publishing IG > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM > > If an online calendar is simply a UX over a database then I don't consider > it a "document" (whether or not the calendar entries have been curated). > But if the calendar system can produce a PDF representation of the > calendar, that would be a portable document (but not a "portable *web* > document"). > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 21:51:27 UTC