[Admin] PWP vs. WP design (was Re: Identifying a book on the Web today)

(Changed the subject line a bit)

Makoto,


> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:00, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>> wrote:
> 
> Laurent,
> 
> I am responding one of your comments.
> 
> I thought that we agreed to tackle the WP spec and then the PWP spec, but 
> I did not think that we are going to ignore PWP during the design of WP. 

at the moment, the goal is to produce First Public Working Drafts. These are _not_ final specifications, very far from it; these are mostly outlines for the main areas, stakes in the ground, so to say, with possibly (probably) lots of open issues. Some of those sections may have more technical  content, some of them may not. We also agreed that we would consider the main outlines of WP first and then PWP. This does not mean _finalizing_ anything before the other.

To touch upon Laurent's other comment: I believe it is way better to record open specific issues in github, rather than having disparate email discussions. We may or may not discuss the issues right now, but by virtue of being explicitly raised we can be sure that, eventually, those question will be dealt with. Your latest question about multiple URL-s on the same resource is a typical example for this.

I hope this helps

Cheers

Ivan




> My 
> interpretation may well be incorrect.  But I think that finishing WP without 
> considering PWP will lead to the separation of the Web world and the EPUB 
> world.
> 
> Regards,
> Makoto
> 
> 2017-08-04 19:42 GMT+09:00 Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org <mailto:laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>>:
> Dear Makoto, 
> 
> From my remote island, I will have three comments:
> - The title of this thread (Identifying a book on the Web today) and the issue of URLs for resources embedded in a PWP are not related, which makes following threads (and searching in threads in the future) rather hard.
> - we agreed to tackle issues with PWPs after WPs are clear. Your issue definitely seems to be related with PWPs.
> - I still don't see why *all* discussions have moved from github to emails. The expected split btw generic and specific discussions, envisaged by Tzviya initially if I recall well, does not work in practice IMHO. 
> 
> Best,
> Laurent
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 4 août 2017 à 12:05, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>> a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-08-04 18:37 GMT+09:00 Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com <mailto:hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>>:
>> For PWP the situation is a little bit more complex because the package may be 'elsewhere', ie, not on the Web but, if we regard (which I think is the case) a PWP some sort of a frozen version of a WP through some packaging, then the internal structure of a PWP would 100% reflect its 'exploded' WP ancestry. 
>> 
>> Bottom line: I do not see the problem. But that may only be me.
>> 
>> For a PWP that has a WP ancestry, this is fairly easy to handle and we can simply references all resources using their URL, no matter the context (packaged or not).
>> For PWP with no prior WP ancestry, this might be more difficult, but I don't think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed now. 
>> 
>> I do not think so.  I think that this issue is extremely important for 
>> the unification of EPUB and the Web.  To me, details of manifests 
>> are much less important.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Makoto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
> 
> Makoto


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>