Re: Reworked the section on 'horizontals'

I wasn’t trying to address the tooling.  I just wanted to make it clear that “an author produces content using a set of technologies that offer a set of capabilities from which they can pick and choose the one(s) they want to use in their publication(s).”

Right now, it reads more about the technologies and what they offer (probably because of the copy/paste from other pieces).  Trying to refocus on the content.

For example (and I know this will be contentious), while a PWP _CAN_ be made accessible through the use of the OWP technologies – an author doesn’t have to do that if they don’t wish to do so.  And the current text implies that every PWP would be…

Leonard

From: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Deborah Kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Reworked the section on 'horizontals'

Hi Leonard,

Thanks for the feedback. I’m a little confused by some of the comments because now we seem to conflating authoring tools with tools used to access the PWP. A significant goal of PWP is of course the (portable) access. We have not touched on authoring at all, and I don’t think this document needs to address authoring. We are putting forward the use cases and requirements for the Web community. What will need to change in the WWW, not a list of rules for creating an authoring tool.

Comments in line.

Thanks,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:06 PM
To: Ivan Herman; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; Deborah Kaplan
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: Reworked the section on 'horizontals'

A few editorial comments.  They are all related to separating what an author is able to do with the technologies (which is about PWP) from the technologies themselves (which is the OWP).

>Web content has to be accessed under different circumstances that Web site authors must be prepared for:
>the content must be available to the largest possible audience in a secure manner and providing the necessary protection of the reader’s privacy
>
Replace with:
“Content produced using the Open Web Platform set of technologies can be accessed under different circumstances.  The content author should be able to prepare their content such that it can be available to the largest possible audience.”

TS: This is intended to be a comment about accessing content, not about authoring content. I’m not sure that your edit conveys the same information.

> To achieve this goal, the underlying technologies must be able to answer to
>
Replace with:
“By using the Open Web Platform technologies, solutions to”
and then end the sentence with:
“are provided.”
TS:  I’m a little unsure what you’re proposal is here. Would you please provide the full sentence that you propose to remove and the full sentence that you propose to replace it with.

Accessibility:
> People with disabilities should be able use the content
>
Replace with:
“An author should be able to provide content that can be consumed by people with disabilities”

TS: Again, we are not talking about the role of the author, but the fact the Web’s A11y tools must step up to meet PWP and its nuances.

Device Independence:
> Content should be
>
Replace with:
“Authors should be able to develop content that can be”

TS:  same comment – we are not talking about the role of the author, but the role (the requirement that we are asking) of the Web

Privacy:
> Privacy concerns are raised as applications built on the Web platform
>
Replace with:
“Content that utilizes the Open Web Platform technologies”
TS: I’m OK with this change.

My only other comment is that the second and third use case/example are almost identical – do we need both?
TS: I think these use cases show that we are working with different kinds of publications, but it is a good idea to change one of them to a demonstrate a different time of disability. Maybe we should change the Ed example to a use case for a student who requires cognitive assistance.


Otherwise, looks good.

Leonard


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:57 AM
To: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>, Deborah Kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net<mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>>
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: Reworked the section on 'horizontals'
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:57:16 +0000

Deborah, Tzviya,

as agreed yesterday, I reworked the section on horizontals; here it is:

http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#the-publication-should-conform-to-all-the-requirements-of-horizontal-dependencies


Salt-'n-pepper at your will:-) But I hope this is the direction you had in mind!

(Needless to say, there are some cut-and-paste here from some W3C pages…)

Ivan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704