Re: Rough sketch for WP, was Re: Dereferencing, was Re: Jotting down some discussion topics

On September 21, 2016 at 5:36:06 PM, David Wood (david.wood@ephox.com) wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> There has been a long-standing disagreement (some would say 'confusion', or
> even worse) in the library community about the value of a 'work'. One way
> to look at a book (or any other form of work) is that only the contents
> matter. The other common way to look at a work is to say that the physical
> form itself (the 'container') is the important part.
>
> Sometimes both perspectives are valid. The physical object may be of
> important historical value if it is an original first addition, or the only
> original source material. The more common case is that it is only the
> contents that matter; they may be places in many forms.
>
> Your message has me wondering whether a variation on this age-old argument
> also pervades the publishing industry. If so, this may be why we are
> stumbling over terminology.
>
> Your description of a WP seems to come from the perspective that a WP is an
> application (a container that includes content). You call it an
> application. Is that right?

That is correct. I call it an application (it has moving parts,
basically - and it's limitless in size/space because it's dynamic...
but don't want to get too meta about it).

> I, and most Webby folk, have been presuming that a WP is just a bunch of
> contents. Those contents may be acted upon by any of a number different
> containers, such as a browser or an ebook reader. It is those containers
> that would 'turn the pages', create the table of contents, manage hyperlink
> clicking, etc.

Right, to me, the browser is NOT a container. The browser and ebook
reader is an engine or runtime, which can (un-pack) and execute the
application.

To me, a container would be a zip file. Or a "logical container", as
in the case of a URL space (everything at foo.com/thebook is "the
book"). Or, all the resources (images, css, ect.) linked from within
this HTML file form a container.

> Am I on the right track? If so, I would hope that we can surface the
> perspectives so we can come to agreement. I would personally hope that a WP
> becomes just the contents.

On the container side, we seem to have a slight misalignment (i.e.,
the browser is not a container - it's just a runtime). I hope the
above helps!

Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 07:58:29 UTC