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

Re: addressable identifier?

From: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 20:20:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+KS-11ZO_Ni_R5mfxjomWvcpW5RU5X5xV6O7w3382S+RCHCqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
Cc: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
>
> OK, makes sense.
> But then, the URL to a manifest may change, or two different URLs can
> point to the same manifest:
>
> https://resilientwebdesign.com/manifest.json
> https://resilientwebdesign.com/books/../manifest.json
> <https://resilientwebdesign.com/manifest.json>
>

That's why using a canonical location is also useful and makes sense for
the WP identifier.


All I'm saying is I understand the manifest _can_ be used as an identifier
> in a given context (e.g. a UA), but there's nothing to say about that in
> the spec, right? There's a URL, people can use that as an identifier or not.
>

It's entirely up to us to decide that.



> As far as I can tell, there's no such concept in web sites and apps, and I
> don't see that publications need anything other than a loosely specified
> "dc:identifier" property in metadata. (Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just not
> convinced yet :-)
>

We're trying to figure out how we're different from plain websites. We
agreed that the difference is mostly the manifest, having a canonical
location for the manifest and using it as an identifier could further prove
that point.

Also, rel="canonical" is widely used on the Web today.
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 18:21:29 UTC

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