RE: definition of Web Publication

> 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

 

As far as terminology discussions can go, this has actually been pretty
brief... :)

 

Seriously, though, I understand your desire to move on to other topics, but
wrapping this up as best we can now is going to be helpful for all future
discussions. And it doesn't have to block those discussions. Imprecision
just leads to misunderstandings, even if it gets pedantic at times.

 

I'd also like for this discussion to result in a new definition we put in
the document, so it's not wasted effort. The discussions were quieting down
until this sidetrack, so perhaps we are nearing something the whole group
can resolve on.

 

Matt

 

From: Romain [mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com] 
Sent: July 26, 2017 11:58 AM
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
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>
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication

 

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).

 

Romain.

 

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

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