- From: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:34:08 -0500
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dave Cramer <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > Then we are in agreement over how things should be. However, the way it is phrased and the place where it is phrased (the introduction) seems to imply that it is a defining characteristic of a publication that it be a ordered set of resources. If a publication can be composed of many unordered resources with a single one being in the default order (which you say is fine and I agree), then being ordered is not a defining feature of publications, and that sentence should probably be reworded a bit. > I do think ordering is fundamental to the nature of a publication, and one of the things that makes web publications different from web sites or databases. A story has a beginning and an end. Anthologies and cookbooks organize and sequence their components to amplify meaning or understanding. There may be many possible sequences, but to create a publication is to choose at least one. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining a publication, an "internally complete representation of an idea", which does not have any sort of implicit or explicit order. What would the user experience be like? How would it be different than a web site? Here's a possible rewording of the sentence in question, which is a little less aggressive about ordering being primary: "A Web Publication must provide a default ordering of the primary constituent resources, although that order may be changed by user interaction or scripting." Thanks, Dave
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2016 17:34:41 UTC