- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 11:54:49 +0200
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1FE90995-558F-4E28-9AB3-6371B5A64563@w3.org>
> 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
Received on Monday, 30 May 2016 09:55:03 UTC