Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 15:43 , Brady Duga <duga@google.com> wrote:
>
> Local and remote instead of packed and unpacked?
>
>
> Doesn't the same issue arise as with online vs. offline? I can have, on my
> laptop, the same document side-by-side in a package (say, an EPUB file) as
> well as part of my directory structure. They would be both 'local',
> wouldn't they?
>

And they might both be EPUBs. The requirement to zip the archive didn't
always exist, and may not in the future. Traditionally, the concept of a
"document" in markup languages did not imply one file. If we are changing
that we should *definitely* stop using document in our terms! In fact,
knowing if something is in one file or not is difficult. On OS X, there are
documents that are shown with a single icon and act to the user as a single
file, but are actually stored as a collection of files in a directory. A
typical user will think it is one document. On Windows you used to be able
to open zip files like folders. To the typical user that one file was
multiple documents.


> The use of "one unit" is odd, since presumably you could have a PDD that
> is in several files, spread across multiple folders. What is the unit it
> was packed into?
>
>
> Hm. I must admit that, for me, a packed PDD is in one file. Just like
> EPUB, in this sense. Do you have an example of a packed PDD spreading
> across multiple files?
>

See above, but EPUB might be one such example. It depends if we reinstate
the virtual file system stuff in OCF and allow for a file system
representation in addition to a ZIP archive.


>
> As for the term User Agent, EPUB intentionally uses Reading Systems to
> avoid confusion with a browser UA. A Reading System uses composition
> (has-a) instead of inheritance (is-a) as the relationship to a UA. It may
> not be quite technically correct, but it makes clear that a RS may be more
> than a local browser (it includes any polyfills, server components, etc).
>
>
> It was my mistake to bring in another term in the discussion, my
> apologies. Brady, is it o.k. if we postpone this discussion (the term is on
> the list of pending items on the Glossary page) or we push it into a
> separate thread? I am a little bit afraid of mixing up discussion that
> would make things very messy.
>

I am fine not adding a new term, and for our work User Agent makes sense. I
was just trying to explain why Reading System exists. I don't think this
group should use that term.