Re: [dpub-loc] 20160217 minutes

If you have a dumb server (eg. a static file hosting service) - how do you get the “explicit links in the GET answer”?

As Daniel pointed out (somewhere), either you need a smart server, a smart client or some combination of the two.   His approach seems to be to put all the smarts on the client  and assume all servers are dumb.   Ivan and I are looking to solve for all the other possible options by describing how a configured (in various ways) server can enable clients to do less work to accomplish their task(s).

And to Ivan – I am not saying that ONLY content negotiation should be used – just that it is one method.  So we do agree :)   (and I also agree with you that we should use HTTP and all that it offers)

Leonard

From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com<mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 3:24 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com>>, "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: [dpub-loc] 20160217 minutes


On 18 Feb 2016, at 02:49, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:

Actually, the big issue that I took away from the minutes is that ivan and I are in agreement that content negotiation (via standard web technique incl. the Accept header) is the proper way for the client & server to decide what to return on the GET from the canonical locator.   Daniel, however, appears (from the minutes) to be promoting a completely different approach.

As stated before [1], I am absolutely not convinced that content negotiation is a good approach.
I want to upload a PWP tomorrow to a static file hosting service; if conneg is required I can't do that.

More to the point: how to you GET the (manifest + Lu + Lp) info with the conneg solution? Maybe I just miss something.

Finally, may I turn the question the other way around: what are the benefits of content negotiation for the canonical locator? (compared to an alternative approach with explicit links in the GET answer (headers or payload).

Thanks,
Romain.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Jan/0136.html



Daniel, if you can explain why you want to do something different from the standard web/REST model, I’d like to understand.

Leonard

From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com<mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 6:26 PM
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com>>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Subject: Re: [dpub-loc] 20160217 minutes

On 17 Feb 2016, at 23:12, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Leonard, that's quite a bold statement, but I suspect the minutes could do with a few corrections.
My bad if the minutes are inaccurate, please feel free to amend. It was a bit frustrating too: several times I wanted to talk or precise a point but was busy typing.
At any rate, I look forward to the recap from you and Ivan at the next opportunity. PS: it was a small quorum on this concall, but I was under the impression that the participants agreed on the broad lines of your proposal, with only details to clarify.
My impression is that participants generally agreed with the presentation of the issues and some principles. I believe that the main point that is still controversial is really what should be the answer to a GET on the canonical locator.

I think we need to go do this over again next week – which si extremely unfortunate.

If I'm not mistaken Matt, Markus, Tzviya and I won't be able to attend (EDUPUB summit).

Romain.

Regards, Daniel

On 17 Feb 2016 9:17 p.m., "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
Sorry that I was unable to attend today, especially since the discussion (based on the minutes) seems to completely undo all the work that Ivan, myself and others did on the mailing list during the past week.   The position presented by Daniel is the exact opposite of what Ivan’s musings (adjusted based on mail conversations) presented.

I think we need to go do this over again next week – which si extremely unfortunate.

Leonard

Fro  "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM
To: "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: [dpub-loc] 20160217 minutes
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Minutes from today’s meeting: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/17-dpub-loc-minutes.html


Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>