Re: [Moderator Action] [dpub] 20160822 agenda

How about if the onus of keeping something locked is on the entity desiring it to be so, and not encoding that capability into the medium and making extra work for UA/RS to track user additions/modification?

That’s how it is with Kindle et al now. They should continue doing it that way.

B.


> On 25 Aug 2016, at 10 :50 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> If the annotations modify the “package”, and there are either technical or licensing reasons that prevent the modification of that “package” – yes.
> 
> Of course, that doesn’t mean that a given UA/RS couldn’t keep the annotations physically separate from the publication and “merge them on the fly”.
> 
> Leonard
> 
> On 8/25/16, 4:25 PM, "Cramer, Dave" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com> wrote:
> 
>    On 8/25/16, 3:56 PM, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
>> Because not all authors/publishers of PWPs will necessarily allow them to
>> be modified.
> 
> 
>    Most of what Boris mentioned sounded to me more like annotations than
>    modification of content. Are there use cases for preventing annotations of
>    a PWP?
> 
>    Dave
> 
>    This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 21:01:55 UTC