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

Deborah, I like your definition, it is not only simpler but also uses
logical composition (that "any aggregate whose content is portable is
itself portable") . I don't like "display" but that's a fine point.

To try to make this yet even simpler, it's been said that "you can't take
it with you!". To me the essence of portability is that "you *can* take it
with you!".  And the "it" means the content that we are calling portable...
if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is only a snapshot
of one particular state of that content then the content itself cannot
thereby be considered portable.

--Bill

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Deborah Kaplan <
dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote:

> This is an attempt to simplify the conversation, moving away from specific
> examples and technical terminology. If it just adds complexity, let's
> pretend I didn't say anything. My basic summary as I think that Ivan's
> earlier definition of "portable" is just fine. ;)
>
> A Web Document consists of:
>
> 1. Content, that is
> 2. Encoded in some format
>
> "Content" might mean text, captions, a video, a visualization, data,
> math,  musical notation, the smell of cloves in a mug of cider on a winter
> morning.
>
> "Encoding format" might mean PDF, plaintext, HTML5, Epub, SubRip, AVIs,
> OGGs, Flash, WMV, MathML, LaTeX, Sibelius, FragrenceML, etc.
>
> Certain elements of a web document sit on a wobbly line between "content"
> and "encoding format," such as fonts.
>
> When a web document is *portable*, that means that the object being
> described as portable:
>
> * Given a toolset which can render all the encoding formats,
> * But in the absence of any other web resources
> * Can display its all of its essential content.
>
> This is still wobbly, to be sure. For example, as Leonard has been
> pointing out, caching is a thing. But I think -- staying away from the
> discussions of specific technological caching solutions, which are relevant
> to defining "portability," --  a web document which contains enough of its
> remote content cached to be displayed in the absence of other web resources
> is portable *only with that cache*. That is to say, the "portable web
> document" is the web document + cache. A web document that has the
> potential to be cached but has *not* been is not portable; it has
> non-portable dependencies.
>
> But I think that this should resolve the questions of leaving it to
> open-ended or too specific. Because we are not addressing specific
> technologies, we can just say that any aggregate whose content is portable
> is itself portable.
>
> (Again, if this adds more confusion, let's pretend I didn't say anything.
> I'm trying to synthesize, not add more chaos. I did enough of that in the
> other thread.)
>
> Deborah
>



-- 

Bill McCoy
Executive Director
International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
email: bmccoy@idpf.org
mobile: +1 206 353 0233