W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > January 2016

Re: Musings on PWP Offline/Online Modes

From: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 21:11:43 +0100
Cc: Dave Cramer <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Nick Ruffilo <nickruffilo@gmail.com>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <00A651FF-2011-484E-88B1-0F147A24D715@gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
It's clear from this thread that the Locators TF's work is strongly dependent on several other aspects of PWP, in particular on packaging and offline/online approaches, and consequently on the PWP manifest, which is likely to be a key part of solving these issues.

I now see that Dave just started a thread on the manifest. Great!
Are there wiki pages or other info that would summarises the current views and decisions on the offline/online mode and packaging stories? or is everything described in the PWP editors draft?.

Sorry if I missed some bits. I'm a recent member of the IG, although I've been watching from the peanut gallery for quite some time :)

Romain.



> On 05 Jan 2016, at 16:44, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> I think the goal should be somewhere in the middle. I agree that the definition of PWP should be, as much as possible, implementation agnostic, but I agree with Dave that saying "we don't care" is also not appropriate.
> 
> We may have to define a PWP Processor in the abstract sense. What a processor is supposed to do to answer to different use cases, what are its functionalities, that sort of things. We may not define it in a normative way in the sense of some formal language or terminology, but we have to understand what can, cannot, should, or should not be done with a PWP. And it is certainly important to know whether the realization of such a PWP processor is possible with today's technologies, what is PWP specific and what can be reused off the shelf, etc.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>> On 5 Jan 2016, at 16:24, Cramer, Dave <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com <mailto:Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 5, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Nick – the specifics of how an RS chooses (or not) to cache are out of scope for PWP.  They may make sense for some sort of format-specific work (eg. best practices for PWP with EPUB) but we don’t care about it here.
>>> 
>>> Remember – PWP is format/packaging and implementation agnostic.   (we seemed to all agree to that pre-holidays)
>>> 
>> 
>> The fact that an existing web technology can solve a critical use case for PWP is on-topic in my opinion, and learning about such things can only help our work. Such technologies may not be a part of the documents we produce, but saying "we don't care about it here" I think sends the wrong message.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> 
> 
> 
> 


Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2016 20:12:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:21 UTC