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

Re: definition of Web Publication

From: Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:38:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CABOtQmECXTJAP5iJ=D7sEq9tJ_q8V=yX-P2b+WCAR4UR8VpPbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
+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

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