- From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:05:36 +0900
- To: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALvn5ECnfmbFWbKSCuYQy0VYp4MsGH+VbOQmtu_FiaaQU1+dow@mail.gmail.com>
I would like to raise some issues around this paragraph in the PWP note. >A Web Publication may be packaged (and become a PWP — >Packaged Web Publication) by having some or all of its constituent >resources combined into a single file. The package must include >the unique identifier of the manifestation. The act of packaging >must be reversible; one must be able to recover the original >structure and organization. In particular, relative URLs within >the publication must not be altered. References relative to >a publication should remain stable. We consider the >unpackaged state of a web publication to be canonical. Should such issues be raised in the PWP repository or WP repository? Regards, Makoto 2017-08-06 13:16 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>: > > On 5 Aug 2017, at 23:44, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp> wrote: > > Ivan and Laurent, > > I raised some github issues. > > Ivan, thank you for your clarification. Indeed, there will be a lot of > open issues in the First Public Working Drafts. > > I have been concerned that the manifest format (and the predecessor, BFF) > would be finished without having a big picture for the unification of the > Web world and the EPUB world. If the WP and PWP FPWDs do not provide > details of the manifest format, I am happy with your scenario. > > > They may contain but they are not final, and may change if other issues > come up. > > Ivan > > > Regards, > Makoto > > > 2017-08-04 22:08 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>: > >> (Changed the subject line a bit) >> >> Makoto, >> >> >> On 4 Aug 2017, at 15:00, MURATA Makoto <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>: >> >>> 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> a >>> écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-08-04 18:37 GMT+09:00 Hadrien Gardeur < >>> 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/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153> >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> > > > -- > > Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake > > Makoto > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Publishing@W3C Technical Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153> > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > -- Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake Makoto
Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 07:06:00 UTC