RE: definition of Web Publication

Finding a common set of goals to guide the technical discussions was one of the objectives going into, and coming out of, the last call, so I don't know that we can just jump to the list. That's the hoped-for outcome, as I understand it.

 

Going into technical discussions without a starting definition of a web publication, though, leads to the kind of endless arguments we saw on github. That's where this discussion came from, as it's been noted we have different perceptions.

 

I agree definitions are never in and of themselves technical solutions, and I'm not seeing that we've restricted the details of how a manifest, reading order, etc. can be implemented (or whether they get tossed later). But, I still think this is important to hash out and get preliminary agreement. It's also a necessary piece of a fpwd if we want to impart to reviewers what we believe we're trying to achieve and how we see it happening.

 

Matt

 

From: Romain [mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com] 
Sent: July 26, 2017 10:03 AM
To: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>; Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>; Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication

 

A synthesis with bullet points w/b good. And I believe it's OK if some points are still open questions, to be further examined during the technical discussions.

 

Romain.

 

On 26 Jul 2017, at 15:49, Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org <mailto:laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org> > wrote:

 

I would propose we let our beloved chairs propose a synthesis of the new thoughts expressed in this thread and an updated short definition, so that we can restart technical discussions on a common base. 

 

Cordialement, 

Laurent 

 

Le 26 juil. 2017 à 15:43, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com <mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com> > a écrit :

 

Sure, going to some technical detail is important, it depends on the depth to which one should go while defining principles.
Having a common definition is good, but we may not spend too much time on word smith.
Personally, I would be ok to see a list of bullet points for defining WP.

With regards
Avneesh