Re: Notes about the Web App manifest document

Hi Mike, well nothing I see indicates that the motivation for PWP is just
to solve "save web page for use offline". But I will be trying to come to
more of the meetings and hopefully I'll get a better sense of what's
actually being worked on right now. I admit to being a bit out of the
actual loop of what folks have been working on (I did kick the tires of
Jake's Service Worker demo but that's all I considered it to be - a demo,
not a spec or final solution).

But the PWP document to me is describing a much broader vision than that.
My response was about the vision, which is what I understood Leonard and
Ivan were talking about, not the first articles of deliverables. If all we
are trying to do is make it possible for web pages to be used offline I
don't think we need any manifest or packaging. Or, if we do want it to be
packaged and interoperable/archivable then why not just use EPUB since it
is already there and adopted (adding HTML serialization is currently
deferred from EPUB 3.1 but is trivial). As you say today's processes are
the building blocks and today we already have EPUB as a packaged form of
Web content. That wouldn't solve the grand unified theory of
online/offline+packaged/distributed seamlessness as articulated in the PWP
vision, but neither would just doing "save web page for use offline" which
browsers can already do now in various ways.

--Bill


On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Mike Perlman <perlmanm@me.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill - A bit late where I am to respond in detail to your feedback.
>
> Briefly IMO, when it comes to the spec, less is better. Especially since
> the objective is to seamlessly abstract online to offline and the online
> world is already full-featured and well-tested.
>
> Right now part of PWP still targets replacing PDF or other formats to save
> a given web page offline.
> To me this is a great idea, a great place to start, and actually very very
> complex given that the web page will most likely be extracted from a CMS.
> Solutions will need to be developed that can accommodate an infinite number
> of user configs. And yet all the tools already exist to start this process
> today.
>
> This does NOT foreclose on new possibilities for the future. IMO quite
> the opposite. Today’s processes are the building blocks for tomorrow’s
> dreams.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 02 Jun 2016, at 09:47, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote:
>
> Mike I wasn't necessarily suggesting any course correction I was just
> making a perhaps ill-advised parenthetical remark in the midst of
> misunderstanding the nature of the debate between Ivan and Leonard. But I
> will express my $.02 that:
>
> - if the PWP vision intends to solve the
> online/offline+packaged/distributed problem for Web content in general  -
> including things like my examples of javascript games and videos that seem
> to fit the current definition of "Web Publication" - then yes I think we
> should say so, that's not a course correction that's just calling a spade a
> spade given that the charter of this group references "document
> publishing". If we're solving a broader problem then great but let's say so
> ... that's just being honest not a course correction. Or, if we're not then
> let's be honest about that and that might be a course correction if some
> folks have been imagining we were. I like the aspiration to solve the
> broader problem because it clarifies that the scope of PWP work is much
> broader than EPUB. But it also makes it clear that this is really a Web
> architecture thing not an electronic document thing.
>
> - if the PWP vision can be interpreted as being limited to a single HTML
> web page then I think we need some wordsmithing. While I take issue with
> the broad definition of "Web Publication" (as including much more than
> "documents" but kind of obscuring that it does so)  it is clearly stated
> that a Web Publication "is an aggregated set of interrelated Web
> Resources". Of course such resources may be HTML documents. But nothing in
> that definition says that the whole is necessarily encapsulated in a single
> HTML document and the "aggregated set" implies it could be otherwise. I
> happen to personally think that a Web-native realization of the vision
> could benefit if an HTML document (which includes SVG content as well) was
> the canonical entry point vs. expecting a processor to handle something
> else like XML or JSON. But being the entry point to a publication doesn't
> mean that it is *the* publication.
>
> - re: <nav> I consider it a feature not a bug that it is missing from the
> current PWP vision document - actually the word navigation isn't in there
> at all. But that just reinforces my point that the work so far on solving
> for online/offline+packaged/distributed seamlessness hasn't really been
> about what I would call "document publishing". I think it's goodness that
> PWP work to date has focused on solving a BHAG and one which is not already
> solved in e.g. EPUB but that doesn't mean that this work to date covers
> everything that's going to be needed to fully encompass native Web portable
> documents. So I'm not so much suggesting a course correction as noting en
> passant that some more work needs to be done. I do think it's relevant to
> the manifest question though because to me the thing that's clearly
> distinct about a document manifest from an app manifest is that the former
> has order and (ideally) navigation, the latter does not. But if this group
> wants to focus on the superclass first - the Web Manifest - great.
>
> --Bill
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Mike Perlman <perlmanm@me.com> wrote:
>
>> So this would be a “course correction”, as <nav> is not mentioned in the
>> latest version of Editor’s Draft (16 May 2016 -
>> https://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/) nor does its “Vision” mention the
>> requirement of more than one HTML page. Of course a <nav> with internal
>> links on a single html page could be useful.
>>
>> Also, it is possible to have multiple pages without multiple HTML files -
>> as is the case of an EPUB or in some of the 5DOC samples (using fullpage.js
>> and reveal.js). So this requirement would be unprecedented as well as
>> another course correction.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On 02 Jun 2016, at 08:03, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote:
>>
>> And, taking this up a level of abstraction from a11y concerns, the linear
>> order and outline of <body> works perfectly well in the case where the
>> entire publication is comprised of a single HTML file and it could be
>> argued that in that base case no additional <nav> is necessary. But the
>> more general case of Web content is composite publications in which more
>> than one resource comprises the content. Resources can be strung together
>> with rel=next but that does not enable random-access navigation to the
>> whole from any point (unless the whole be pre-fetched and pre-digested). In
>> effect a Publication (in my proposed abstract definition as well as
>> concretely in EPUB) is analogous to a Web site / microsite more than it is
>> to a Web page. The term "weblet" was once coined to cover this [1]  but it
>> didn't stick. So HTML5 is the key building block but a single HTML5
>> document is not necessarily the whole thing.
>>
>> Conversely not all web pages with a head and body are publications. Where
>> the body is just an empty div that javascript populates on the fly that is
>> not something that has a canonical order or reliable navigation into it.
>> When a web page is the equivalent of an X window session it is not a
>> publication even though it is still HTML5.
>>
>> --Bill
>>
>> [1] http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/RNR-94-017/RNR-94-017.html
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
>> tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Tzviya Siegman*
>>>
>>> Information Standards Lead
>>>
>>> Wiley
>>>
>>> 201-748-6884
>>>
>>> tsiegman@wiley.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mike Perlman [mailto:perlmanm@me.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:43 PM
>>> *To:* Bill McCoy
>>> *Cc:* Ivan Herman; Leonard Rosenthol; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; W3C
>>> Digital Publishing IG
>>> *Subject:* Re: Notes about the Web App manifest document
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I have seen the suggestion about <nav> previously.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the importance of <nav> to PWP?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not just html, head, body as in HTML5?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02 Jun 2016, at 07:34, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ivan, my bad I didn't notice that Leonard was quoting you in his email
>>> and thus when you were disagreeing with his detailed suggestion  you
>>> obviously didn't have to clarify that you agreed with the higher-level
>>> point... since it was yours. That's what I get for dropping in midway on a
>>> long thread, sorry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. I do still have a quibble about the broad/vague definition of "Web
>>> Publication" in the current PWP manifesto, that probably corresponds to a
>>> broad/vague definition of "Web App" by that group... I think some of the
>>> issue is that both efforts are really trying to solve broader problems but
>>> yet may feel that they have  "rope" only to solve problems for a narrower
>>> set of use cases leading among other things to unclear terminology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> just a quick note from my below. TL;DR: We actually don't disagree...
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Ivan Herman
>>>
>>> Tel:+31 641044153
>>>
>>> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 Jun 2016, at 18:00, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, not to set precedent by agreeing with Leonard ;-) but Ivan I think
>>> you missed part of his point (with which I do agree): we should have a more
>>> general "Web Manifest" which could then be specialized as necessary for
>>> "Web Apps" and "Web Publications", not trying to build on something already
>>> specialized for "Apps".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it what I said? In any case that was my intention to say: the
>>> problem I see with the current manifest document is that it is a Web App
>>> Manifest instead of a generic manifest that can be "subclassed" to a Web
>>> App or a Web Publication manifest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That seems worthwhile independently of debates about e.g. JSON (I do
>>> agree with you on this and since EPUB already is ZIP-based as is almost
>>> everything else under the sun I am not offended by the idea of evolving
>>> towards a universal Web packaging that is ZIP+JSON rather than ZIP+XML).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But back to Leonard's higher-level point: I still think with PWP we are
>>> a bit too liberal about what we mean by "Web Publication" [1] at least as
>>> regards the current scope of the IG. I could take this definition as
>>> inclusive of for example a casual game written in JavaScript (so all its
>>> essential functionality is there and it is usable offline). But of course
>>> the Web Apps folks would consider that an "App", as they should. And the
>>> Holy Grail that PWP seeks to solve (Web content that is seamlessly usable
>>> online and offline and whether its constituent resources are packaged or
>>> distributed) applies equally well to such apps (albeit not client-server
>>> apps) as well as other types of content that might be argued to be beyond
>>> the scope of our charter (such as videos). I think it's great if PWP solves
>>> bigger problems that help OWP overall but let's call a spade a spade - if
>>> we are solving the online/offline packaged/distributed seamlessness for web
>>> content in general then it is  just "Web" not "Web Publications" or "Web
>>> Apps".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And if we want a more crisp definition of what is really a "Publication"
>>> that sits fully within the scope of the current IG charter and participants
>>> (and I think we do) my candidate is that a publication is any Web content
>>> that has a defined order for its essential content and provides
>>> discoverable navigation into it. That is to me what makes EPUB EPUB, not
>>> the details of *how* those things are defined in EPUB 3. And doing so could
>>> be as simple as saying any Web content that designates a <nav> element that
>>> provides these things qualifies as a "Publication".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#pwp_definition
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 29 May 2016, at 18:27, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Maybe we can agree in some sort of a 'core' set of term for a Web
>>> Manifest (and not Web *App* Manifest), which can then be adapted for
>>> different constituencies
>>> >>
>>> > Not just for constituencies but also potentially for grammars and/or
>>> serializations.  The plan to use JSON vs XML vs. ??? is still before us,
>>>
>>> Well… I have the impression that this boat has sailed, but that is my
>>> personal impression. The Web Community has voted with its feet, so to say,
>>> to move away from XML towards JSON. That may become HJSON, or some other
>>> evolution of JSON, but the direction is quite clear. What we heard from
>>> Chaals is the probably move of the Web App/Browser community is to towards
>>> a ZIP+JSON manifest combination when it comes to packaging.
>>>
>>>
>>> > yet figure out what we need in there in terms of concepts and values
>>> would be worthwhile regardless of the serialization.
>>> >
>>> > I also like the separation of core terms from publication terms – and
>>> possibly even specific publication terms (eg. “Edupub”).
>>> >
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Leonard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 5/29/16, 4:43 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 27 May 2016, at 20:54, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <
>>> tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Ivan,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for getting this started.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What I was envisioning for PWP is something along the lines of
>>> exploiting the Navigation Scope [1]. This would mean, that, like an app, a
>>> PWP is a defined set of "scope members" [2]. Scope members have many of the
>>> same features that we've been discussing for PWP - identity, location, type
>>> - and I'm hoping that this can be a launch point for discussion of a
>>> customized/customizable equivalent to epub's spine or manifest.
>>> >>
>>> >> I agree. This is certainly one of the items in the manifest doc that
>>> we can re-use and keep compatibility. Display mode[1] is another area, for
>>> example.
>>> >>
>>> >> However, my problem with the document is more general. Chaals
>>> referred to this manifest doc as, possibly, the basis for some sort of a
>>> Zip+manifest packaging approach that browsers may favor. However, it is not
>>> clear in the document whether, to be a bona fide manifest, it MUST contain
>>> all the terms defined in this document (with possibly more via the
>>> extension point) or not. And, if not, is there a subset of the terms that
>>> is required or is it a completely open set. Because if everything that is
>>> in the document is required, then we may run into a problem.
>>> >>
>>> >> Maybe we can agree in some sort of a 'core' set of term for a Web
>>> Manifest (and not Web *App* Manifest), which can then be adapted for
>>> different constituencies, like Apps or publications, then we would be in a
>>> much better place imho.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ivan
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#the-display-mode-media-feature
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We will have to figure out what to do about all the information,
>>> such as installation.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#navigation-scope
>>> >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#member-scope
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Tzviya Siegman
>>> >>> Information Standards Lead
>>> >>> Wiley
>>> >>> 201-748-6884
>>> >>> tsiegman@wiley.com
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
>>> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 6:24 AM
>>> >>> To: W3C Digital Publishing IG
>>> >>> Subject: Notes about the Web App manifest document
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear all,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As some sort of a followup from the discussion we had with Chaals… I
>>> have looked at the Web App Manifest doc (
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/) to see whether it could work for us
>>> as a basis for the manifest in PWP. These are just my (slightly
>>> unstructured) notes.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The document defines a JSON structure/set of terms, and some
>>> processing steps to find and consume those manifests. This general approach
>>> is identical to what we considered as PWP (or BFM…) manifests, and that is
>>> the reason why considering the specification for our purposes is actually
>>> important. It includes a number of terms that may be very relevant (e.g.,
>>> I18N consideration for manifest members like title and descriptions, the
>>> concept of display mode which may have a direct relevance for PWP, the
>>> concept of a scope, that may define a ‘subset’ of possible URIs to identify
>>> PWP resources). It also defines an extension mechanism, i.e., it is
>>> possible to define application specific terms (“members”, as they are
>>> referred to in the spec), i.e., it is possible to include anything we want
>>> for PWP.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> However: the Web App Manifest is, well, Web **App** Manifest. It is
>>> geared at Web Applications as far as many of the chosen set of terms are
>>> concerned. Its main goal is to define terms needed for the download and
>>> installation of Web Applications, i.e., active entities. Although, with a
>>> bit of a stretch of imagination, one could consider a PWP an active entity
>>> in case the PWP Processor is a downloadable application for that specific
>>> content, I am not sure this is the prevalent view. Ie, a PWP is a “passive”
>>> thing (regardless of whether it has internal javascript based
>>> interactivity) that is downloaded as a set of resources by a general
>>> processor. What this means is that the current Web App Manifest contains a
>>> bunch of irrelevant terms     (related application, start url, icons,
>>> platform).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There are also terms that, though may look relevant, would probably
>>> more appropriate in a CSS file or some other files within the PWP (eg,
>>> theme color). The processing/linking is simpler than what we discussed: the
>>> only source of a manifest is what can be accessed via a <link> element in
>>> HTML, there is no provision for HTTP Return Link Header, or embedded JSON
>>> content within an HTML file.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am not sure where to go from here. My ideal would be to have a
>>> “general” manifest file that would include whatever is generally useful or
>>> necessary, a (slightly more general) way of finding a manifest, general
>>> processing steps (which are part of the document) and then some clearer
>>> extension points/facilities for specific application areas, like Web Apps
>>> or PWP.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Feedbacks? Ideally, we should have some discussion in the IG, ending
>>> a more solid, and common view that we could put in as an issue/comment to
>>> the current document. With the hope that, via some joint work, we can get
>>> somewhere…
>>> >>>
>>> >>> WDYT?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ----
>>> >> 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
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill McCoy
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
>>>
>>> email: bmccoy@idpf.org
>>>
>>> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill McCoy
>>>
>>> Executive Director
>>>
>>> International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
>>>
>>> email: bmccoy@idpf.org
>>>
>>> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bill McCoy
>> Executive Director
>> International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
>> email: bmccoy@idpf.org
>> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Bill McCoy
> Executive Director
> International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
> email: bmccoy@idpf.org
> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
>
>
>


-- 

Bill McCoy
Executive Director
International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF)
email: bmccoy@idpf.org
mobile: +1 206 353 0233