- From: Brady Duga <duga@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:26:14 -0700
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH_p_eV3_3mNChS-Z7MndwXuUV+-rQPmLu=WKbDCM5-zpgWFXA@mail.gmail.com>
Well, manifested or not is kind of hard to say, since we haven't decided what will be in a manifest! But it also seems independent of this. Why does being in the manifest change any of the security or CORS concerns? I guess I will have to delve further into to the github discussion to get all the background. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > Resources vs. “spine” is probably more about whether the thing is > referenced in the manifest or not, then what type of thing it is. For > example, if something isn’t referenced in the manifest, can it be > referenced from outside. This also goes to Murato-san’s comments in one of > the issues where he talks about resource URIs. > > > > Sub-item was the best way I could think to talk about a single paragraph > (for example) in an HTML file. > > > > And yes, this also varies for P vs. not – agreed. > > > > Leonard > > > > *From: *"Brady com>" <duga@google.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:49 PM > *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > *Cc: *"Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, " > public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org> > *Subject: *Re: [pwg] Remixing content - in scope for WP > > > > It would seem odd to restrict linking; I don't see any reason to (the > concerns raised in the original content don't seem to apply), nor have we > done that in epub. So my answer would be no, remixing does not include > linking. As for resources and "spine items", I don't think I understand > your definitions. At least in epub, spine items are resources, not sure > about strict definitions on the web, but it seems like html documents are > resources. In which case, if remixing applies to resources, it also applies > to "spine items". No idea what a "sub-item" is, so I have no opinion. But I > agree the term "remixing content" is vague and could use a good definition. > And there may well be different answers for packaged vs unpackaged (or > not!). > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > wrote: > > And as discussed in the issue – there is also the question of what > “remixing” means in this context. > > > > Are we simply looking at allowing “linking” (vs. inclusion/embedding)? Do > it apply only to resources or also to “spine items”? What about sub-items? > > > > Leonard > > > > *From: *"Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:12 PM > *To: *"public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org> > *Subject: *[pwg] Remixing content - in scope for WP > *Resent-From: *<public-publ-wg@w3.org> > *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:12 PM > > > > This was raised on GitHub [1], but I think it’s an issue about what’s in > scope for WP. > > > > Should WP, PWP, EPUB 4 allow remixing content? When we discussed this in > the DPUB IG, we pushed out to a later date because of security concerns, > cross-origins and many other issues. > > > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/8 > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwpub%2Fissues%2F8&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccac1099c52d7421ced0008d4c94603a7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636354749928874024&sdata=a2p8Lu6jnqwWDWCAE%2FJ1EHYMkNotzBA94t8cMrw12xM%3D&reserved=0> > > > > *Tzviya Siegman* > > Information Standards Lead > > Wiley > > 201-748-6884 <(201)%20748-6884> > > tsiegman@wiley.com > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:26:43 UTC