RE: presentable using OWP technologies?

> The software that present a WP are based on technologies defined by OWP specifications.

 

Isn't this only true to an extent, though? The presentation of an image or audio or video file outside of an HTML/SVG wrapper isn't defined by OWP specifications, is it? (This was presented as an issue in EPUB in terms of what to do with images in the spine, at least.)

 

I'm probably splitting hairs, but when I read that piece of the definition I'm not sure whether it's imposing content restrictions or not. I tend to think it is.

 

Matt

 

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
Sent: August 1, 2017 11:36 AM
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: presentable using OWP technologies?

 

 

On 1 Aug 2017, at 17:27, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Apologies for another definition question, but...

 

What does it mean that a web publication can be presented using open web platform technologies? OWP technologies don't actually do the presenting, browsers do. (Or what is the definition of OWP being used?)

 

I am not sure I see the problem. Yes, browsers, a particular family of software that use OWP technologies to present. But it is not clear then what 'browser' means. If I have an embedded html presenter in some multimedia development environment used to display a documentation: is that embedded piece a browser? I do not think people would consider it as such, but it is a perfectly o.k. environment to display a WP, ie, an online documentation. In other words, by even mentioning the term 'browser' would restrict the scope of the definition.

 

The software that present a WP are based on technologies defined by OWP specifications. That may be a more precise way of saying it, but it is quite a mouthful… so I believe what is there sounds fine.

 

My 2 cents

 

Ivan





 

If we mean primary resources must be constructed using OWP technologies, that excludes image and multimedia formats, and technically even HTML4 or XHTML 1.1. I didn't get the impression that's what people wanted when we discussed the primary resources definition.

 

The only answer I have so far is that it needs to say "is presentable using Web browsing technologies", but I wanted to check if that makes sense to people before revising?

 

Matt

 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead

Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153

ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704