- From: Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:38:52 +0200
- To: Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>
- Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABOtQmECXTJAP5iJ=D7sEq9tJ_q8V=yX-P2b+WCAR4UR8VpPbA@mail.gmail.com>
+1 to Baldur's remarks (and +1's) 2017-07-27 18:19 GMT+02:00 Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>: > +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 19:40:21 UTC