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

web resource and terminology

From: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:52:18 -0400
To: "'W3C Digital Publishing IG'" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301d0f923$57c8e6a0$075ab3e0$@bell.net>
I've been trying to read through the terminology and find there's a
confusing reliance on "web resource" to mean both the content of the
document/publication and the resources needed to render the document.

 

The definition of web resource seems reasonable enough, in that anything
that can be referenced by a URI is a resource. By that definition, an HTML
document is a web resource, but so is a style sheet, script, etc. Stating
that the content of the resource can be retrieved by a protocol doesn't mean
that a resource has content in the readable content of the document sense
(e.g., a style sheet's "content" is all the rules defined in it).

 

The two sub-bullets then start to make an unstated distinction between types
of web resources, however, as an html document will have "essential
content", but a style sheet or script wouldn't appear to.

 

The confusion grows in the web document definition, as now web resources are
"collated." Is it really the case that fonts, scripts, etc. are combined
into a specific ordering? I didn't follow the entire email chain,
unfortunately, but I do recall seeing this in relation to an ordering of the
content in the web document. Collation makes sense in that context, as it is
analogous to the epub spine.

 

And finally, web resource reappears in its more general sense in the third
bullet, but here suggesting "essentiality" of certain resources but not
others (I take from the discussions this has to do with not every resource
impacting the overall readability).

 

Long story short, was consideration given to including a definition of "web
content" (as also exists in WCAG) to disambiguate these many uses of "web
resource" for both content and rendering resources? Essential web content
and functionality is clearer than stated now for resources. A web document
as a collation of web content is also clearer, and it being a web resource
is less confusing. Portability would depend on the ability to present the
content, even if some rendering resources aren't available.

 

Anyway, just wanted to share that thought I had while reading. The
definitions are very nuanced right now without the context of the email
discussions.

 

And as a side note, if "web document" is the ultimate choice for this then
it might be good to bump up in importance that web document != html document
from the last sub-bullet of the web document definition. I expect the terms
are read as synonymous by many people, in which case having a web document
made up of resources makes it sound like you're defining portability only
for single pages.

 

Matt
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2015 12:52:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:13 UTC