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

AW: a word about github

From: Schindler Wolfgang Dr. <w.schindler@pons.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:35:55 +0000
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
CC: "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <27ea91f0fb0a4f8e9ca1f018bcfff5ce@KLETTEXCH01.kli-gruppe.klett.int>
Dear Tzviya,

in a long thread of discussion - on GitHub or via mailing list - it is difficult to keep track of the current status of the discussion, especially as different aspects including data format, serialization, implementation, function for WP etc. might be mingled.

We are using terms such as “manifest”, “spine”, “NavDoc”, “resources”, but I have got the impression that the underlying concepts differ among us which is in part due to our different backgrounds and interests and that we don’t have a clear, commonly shared distinction between these concepts yet.

IMO it would make sense to start with an effort to define key terms and differentiate them based on their function for the WP (abstracting from the details of implementation). For example: We want to be able to define the default or recommended reading order for a WP and call that function “the spine” (as in EPUB) or simply “reading order” (if we prefer a more neutral term). In this activity the question “what’s the difference between x and y?” will pop up and should be dealt with. At a later stage, we could decide whether we will combine several functions in one resource and whether it should be JSON, XML, HTML, etc. I hope that a consensus on terms could make our discussions a bit easier.

Working on written draft documents with in situ alternative passages highlighted would make it easier to focus on a specific aspect and to see at first glance what the different proposals are.

Of course, whatever methods we use, the difference in perspective between publishing as a product that will be sold to customers and publishing as a means of communication for any citizen of the Web will be legitimately influence our work.

Have a nice day ☺

Best, Wolfgang

Von: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken [mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017 18:09
An: Laurent Le Meur
Cc: public-publ-wg@w3.org
Betreff: RE: a word about github

I think we’ve gone beyond that in some issues. I will bring some issues to the list. Deciding which topics are scope is an issue to be discussed on the list.

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead

From: Laurent Le Meur [mailto:laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 10:12 AM
To: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>
Cc: public-publ-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: a word about github

Dear Tzviya,

Github issues, when not strictly scoped, are not the panacea, but email exchanges, bloated with "replies to", would add some more mess.
Let's rather scope the issues and try to maintain some order inside.
About the philosophical level of the current discussions, is trying to find a proper balance between the Web architecture and the EPUB history a philosophical thing? I don't think so.


Laurent Le Meur

Le 12 juil. 2017 à 15:52, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> a écrit :

Dear Beloved PWG,

I am thrilled that we have so much activity on GitHub [1], but GitHub is not meant to replace the email list. Let’s review the guidelines on our Website.

“The group intends to use the [GitHub] repositories’ issue management extensively to discuss technical problems and propose solutions.” [2]

“Although it is expected that a large portion of the technical discussion will happen via the issues mechanism of GitHub, the primary mailing list may also be used for overarching technical as well as business, outreach, administrative, etc, topics.” [3]

I think we have been having a lot of overarching technical discussions on GitHub. Some of the issues that started as technical issues have morphed into philosophical debate. As Garth mentioned, on Monday we are going to start asking how your writing is going. It seems to me that a lot of energy is going into defending philosophy when you could be using this time to draft a section of the FPWD. We can argue about the details after you draft something. I promise we will argue.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues

[2] https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/WorkMode/#github

[3] https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/WorkMode/#mailing-lists-policy-usage-etiquette-etc

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead

Received on Thursday, 13 July 2017 15:36:30 UTC

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