- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:51:00 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <EB7D283D-4A37-4A5C-B058-535CC5B06593@w3.org>
> On 21 Sep 2016, at 02:35, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote: > > From the notes: > >> There is also an orthogonal issue that came up, which may be more related to how a WP would >> be handled on the Web. If, in abstract, we talk about a WP Processor, most probably implemented >> on top of Service Workers, what is the processing model. > > I'll note that talking about a WP Processor might be premature. We've > not shown that a WP is not just a collection of web pages (i.e., there > might not be any additional processing involved on the side of the > browser, or we can't just talk about "user agent"). Because we do not know (and considering the alternatives below), I did find using a separate term (at least for now) clearer; in practice the term 'user agent' (whether this is precise or not) is still associated withe the browser and the browser only for many. I would prefer to avoid a possible confusion. > >> Is a WP: >> >> 1. A separate application relying on a browser engine (but with its own chrome) > > Hopefully not. :-) Personally, I agree, as I note below, but it is a valid alternative… Let alone the fact that if it is combined with possible unpacking, that is what happens today with all EPUB readers. > >> 2. Some sort of an extension or add-on (I am not sure what exactly is the right term these >> days, and we have to explore that) relying on a browser, but re-using the browser chrome. > > Creating a plugin (or, better, using something like Electron) might be > a good start. It's still a browser tho. > >> Ie, if I have, say, a hypothes.is annotation extension added to my browser, I should be >> able to use it when consuming a WP > > It would be very sad if hypothes.is doesn't become, or is not already, > a web service. Are they involved in this effort? I am not sure what you mean by web service: they do have a server and corresponding service on the web, but to make use of it you have to run some javascript on the client. This can be done by using a bookmarklet, or the server of the content can include it in the content. They are not (yet) directly involved. > > Having a chrome only extension is, meh. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > >> 3. There is no WP, in fact, because the browser does it all. > > As representing a browser vendor (Mozilla), I'm super bias - but it > would be very sad if the users of the web didn't benefit from this > effort. So yes, we would want the browser to do it all and we should > fight really really hard to make sure browsers do it all for the > benefit of all:) :-) > >> (My personal feeling is that No. 1 is of course possible but not very interesting (this >> is what current ebook readers do already, nothing new there). The ideal thing would be >> No. 3, but that may be considered as a long-term goal; different browser vendors may have >> different interest and they may decide that a WP is not a "fundamental" feature that should >> be on the Web. I guess No. 2 is the realistic model that we should have.) > > For an IG, yes: a good proof of concept could work ala 2. We are on the same page! > However, > there is a lot of overlap between this effort and other efforts > underway at the w3c - efforts I'd like to point out go beyond the > requirements that this group has jotted down in really really exciting > ways (e.g., web manifest, wake lock API, network information API, web > share API, the whole suite of service workers background sync + > "foreign fetch", etc.) - and this effort's requirements can directly > motivate and inform decisions in those other efforts. So, we might be > able to prototype the future much more quickly and directly by getting > bits that meet the requirements piecemeal into browsers (and we might > not even need to lift a finger a lot of the time). Absolutely. If and when we begin to draft some sort of a WG charter in this direction, we will have to look into all this, and I would appreciate your help when the time comes! We will absolutely need the contacts and information like that when the time comes… The planning for the coming months include a thorough re-write of the separate PWP document, in light of these discussions, and these should all be looked at… Thanks! Cheers Ivan > > Kind regards, > Marcos ---- 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 Wednesday, 21 September 2016 03:51:13 UTC