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

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
wrote:


>>>A Web Resource in a Web Document is *Portable* if an OWP compliant user
> agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively
> >>>on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document
> >>- An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not
> qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document.
> >I do not believe that is a problem. The user agent is able to render the
> essential content of the relevant HTML using a fallback font
> >
> Then perhaps we have a language problem.   The word exclusively (<
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusively?s=t>) has a very clear
> and unmistakable meaning that NOTHING ELSE can be used – that means
> “fallbacks” are not included.    It is that word in that sentence which is
> the problem.  If you remove exclusively and/or replace it with another word
> (predominantly?  Mostly? ??) then I believe we are OK.
>

The adverb "exclusively" is not a problem because of the presence of the
modifier "essential." Your example does not  qualify as "essential" by the
definition that Ivan has added to the glossary. Because it is not essential
content, the "exclusively" never comes into play. Restructuring the
sentence:

IF content in essential content:
     THEN content is exclusively in same_document

Since the IF fails for the font example, the THEN never comes in to play.
Ivan's definition is a standard English way of formally framing the logical
conditional above.


> >As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions *on
> the W3C alone*, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways
> >across different working groups and interest groups, and for different
> specifications and guidelines.
> >
> Can you please give an example? I am not aware of a case where the same
> term is defined in a contradictory manner.  Sure, the same term may be
> defined with more or less specificity or with a particular focus in mind
> but that’s taking the generic->specific and NOT the reverse (which is what
> you are implying we should do).
>

"Document," as I mentioned upstream, is a great example. These are all
elderly examples, because the W3 compiled glossary is no longer updated,
but they're all formal W3 definitions.

document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document>
>>
>> From XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1> (2000-01-26
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801>) | Glossary for this
>> source <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/xhtml1.rdf/>
>> A document is a stream of data that, after being combined with any other
>> streams it references, is structured such that it holds information
>> contained within elements that are organized as defined in the associated
>> DTD. See Document Conformance for more information.
>> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document>
>>
>> From Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and
>> Vocabularies 1.0 <http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/> (2004-01-15
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-struct-vocab-20040115/>) | Glossary
>> for this source
>> <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/CCPP-struct-vocab.rdf/>
>> For the purpose of this specification, "document" refers to content
>> supplied in response to a request. Using this definition, a "document" may
>> be a collection of smaller "documents", which in turn is a part of a
>> greater "document".
>> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document>
>>
>> From XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model (XDM)
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/> (2007-01-23
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-datamodel-20070123/>) | Glossary
>> for this source
>> <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/xpath-datamodel/>
>> A tree whose root node is a Document Node is referred to as a document.
>> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document>
>>
>> From Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10> (2000-02-03
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203>) | Glossary for this
>> source <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/ATAG10.rdf/>
>> A "document" is a series of elements that are defined by a markup
>> language (e.g., HTML 4 or an XML application).
>> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document>
>>
>> From Web Services Glossary <http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-gloss/> (2004-02-11
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/>) | Glossary for this
>> source <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/ws-gloss.rdf/>
>>
>> Any data that can be represented in a digital form. [UeB Glossary]
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/#ueb>
>> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document>
>>
>> From Hypertext Terms <http://www.w3.org/Terms> (1995-04-15
>> <http://www.w3.org/Terms>) | Glossary for this source
>> <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/hypertext-terms.rdf/>
>> A term for a node <http://www.w3.org/Terms#node> on some systems (eg
>> Intermedia). Sometimes used by others as a term for a collection of nodes
>> on related topics, possible stored or distributed as one. The prefered term
>> in W3 documentation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
In all of these cases the general English word "document," which means
different things to different people, is accepted for the purposes of that
context to  have a technical and specific definition, which is often very
different from the other technical and specific definitions.



>
> >We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on
> digital publishing;
> >all we can do is define the terms as they will be used *in our
> documentats and communications*.
> >
> For terms that already exist, I agree.  However, we are creating NEW TERMS
> and those terms are NOT specific to DigPub…and that’s the problem.
>
>
> >I would prefer not to touch to that document *now*. But, as I said, that
> is why this conversation is important.
> >
> Again, then we have a serious disagreement as that document is a big part
> of the work of this committee and the longer that it remains invalid that
> more confusion that is caused by anyone wishing to join this effort.   I’ve
> already most of the work to remove that term, but haven’t pushed it yet.
>
>
Actually, that document is not part of the work of this committee at all.
We are giving input into it, because our input is welcome. But it is not a
product of the digital publishing interest group.

Deborah