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

Re: definition of Web Publication

From: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:57:32 +0200
Cc: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>, Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>
Message-Id: <E39B0CFD-B3D3-472D-B7CF-F147B298B781@gmail.com>
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
On 26 Jul 2017, at 17:01, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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.

OK, I understand where the discussion is coming from.

What I was trying to suggest is that we shouldn't waste too much effort on wordsmithing but more on getting a list of key characteristics, for which we can start figuring out technical solutions.

In other words, I don't really care at this stage if we're saying resources are "bounded" or "organized". What I care about at this stage are more pragmatic characteristics about a web pub, for instance (just a couple things):
- it has a manifest: there's consensus about that, it's a notable difference from a web site
- given a constituent resource, we can know it belongs a web pub and get (indirectly) the other resources

I believe that a bullet point list of key pragmatic characteristics (or requirements), e.g. similarly to what Hadrien [1] or Brady [2] proposed, is more helpful than a fine-tuned definition that pleases everyone (without any foundation base yet).


[1] https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/11#issuecomment-316154103 <https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/11#issuecomment-316154103>
[2] https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/11#issuecomment-316179015 <https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/11#issuecomment-316179015>

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 15:57:57 UTC

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