W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > July 2017

Re: [pwg] Remixing content - in scope for WP

From: Brady Duga <duga@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:26:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAH_p_eV3_3mNChS-Z7MndwXuUV+-rQPmLu=WKbDCM5-zpgWFXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:14 UTC