Re: presentable using OWP technologies?

I, for one, think the current wording is correct.   You’re over thinking it, Matt.

OWP is an open term – there are many things that are part of the OWP.  PDF, for example, is a part of the OWP since it is an open standard format that is (a) found on the web and (b) referenced from various web platforms standards (incl. HTML5).

Leonard

From: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:32 PM
To: 'Ivan Herman' <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: 'W3C Publishing Working Group' <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: RE: presentable using OWP technologies?
Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:31 PM

> I regard the definition as the core "intention" and not as some sort of a mathematical axiom.

Sure, no disagreement there; I'm not trying to build a list of technologies, either.

What about just modifying from "OWP technologies" to "OWP user agents"? A note in the resources section that then explains that user agents are capable of rendering formats that aren't specifically OWP technologies, and those aren't a violation, would make more sense to me.

Matt

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: August 1, 2017 12:21 PM
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 18:06, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>> wrote:

> 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.

Maybe so. On the other hand, if we try to be all-encompassing in the core definitions then we may get to the point where we would build into our specs references to a bunch of proprietary technologies which is again not something we would like to do.

As for audio files in the spine (or similar issues): we can consider those as exceptions. It would perfectly fine for us, when defining a spine, to make a note in the spec saying that we do allow audio files though they are not defined by W3C (just as HTML allows for all kinds of video formats and does not define a single one to be used). And that is fine. I regard the definition as the core "intention" and not as some sort of a mathematical axiom.

Ivan



Matt

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: August 1, 2017 11:36 AM
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org<mailto: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/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeople%2FIvan%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69aa389e080f4fafa08108d4d8fadc5f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636372019326248298&sdata=mKs3dP1SdtrN8yRiUD9fF98FuTs68W6Q1bq6AST4LbI%3D&reserved=0>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0003-0782-2704&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69aa389e080f4fafa08108d4d8fadc5f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636372019326248298&sdata=Lhsb2WD3JDXzlOho7otXzIYP04ei6Y4nv6V65v2T0VU%3D&reserved=0>


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeople%2FIvan%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69aa389e080f4fafa08108d4d8fadc5f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636372019326248298&sdata=mKs3dP1SdtrN8yRiUD9fF98FuTs68W6Q1bq6AST4LbI%3D&reserved=0>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0003-0782-2704&data=02%7C01%7C%7C69aa389e080f4fafa08108d4d8fadc5f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636372019326248298&sdata=Lhsb2WD3JDXzlOho7otXzIYP04ei6Y4nv6V65v2T0VU%3D&reserved=0>