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

Re: definition of Web Publication

From: Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:19:12 -0400
Cc: "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <45683B9E-3C40-4EAA-A69B-02BFB253A098@rebus.foundation>
To: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>
+1 to what Hadrian said and +1 Romain’s earlier point.

- best
- Baldur Bjarnason
  baldur@rebus.foundation



> On 27 Jul 2017, at 11:59, Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com> wrote:
> 
> AFAICT, the only concrete detail proposed that is relatively unambiguous and has technical implications is the idea that a web publication should be defined by an self-identified manifest that can be external to the HTML files that compose the publication and whose URL identifies the publication as a whole. But I’m not sure we have consensus even on that detail.
> 
> That's exactly what I'd like to discuss, and I agree with that statement.
> 
> I think that so far:
> 	• "a web publication should be defined by a self-identified manifest", pretty much everyone agrees about that
> 	• "that can be external to the HTML files", most of the list seems to agree with that, but I've seen a few voices opposed to this idea
> 	• "whose URL identifies the publication as a whole", that's where we have a pretty massive disagreement as I believe that the URL of the manifest is a perfect fit to identify the publication as a whole, but others (Dave, Garth for example) want a URL that returns HTML instead (not sure why an identifier MUST return HTML, but anyway...)
> IMO, this type of bullet point list is more helpful to get a vision of what we're trying to achieve than the kind of details about definitions being discussed in this thread (I know that Romain has made that point before, and I agree with him).
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 16:19:36 UTC

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