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

Re: Can a publication change over time?

From: Ruffilo, Nick <Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:20:24 +0000
To: "laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org" <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, Hugh McGuire <hugh@rebus.foundation>
CC: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>, "W3C Publishing Working Group" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
Message-ID: <A02B0735-CA98-4CD4-A914-EEE9E2B7A16E@ingramcontent.com>
I’m terribly late to this discussion, and this may have been noted, but could versioning possibly solve this?  What if it were optional?

Sort of how a git repo can have versions & branches (although not sure we need to get that complex). You could then link to a specific spot of a documentation at a specific version, and if that location is not found, it could note that the document was updated, and if a history was properly stored, the prior version of the document could be then displayed?

I also think that disallowing a publication to change would be unreasonable.

-Nick

From: "laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org" <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 5:13 PM
To: Hugh McGuire <hugh@rebus.foundation>
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
Subject: Re: Can a publication change over time?
Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 5:13 PM

+1 to Hugh.

The Web is not a CMS but traditional publishers can create a CMS on the Web.

What I mean is that if a publisher wants to guarantee a 100% controlled environment for its WPs, he just has to keep control on 100% of the resources he is dealing with, i.e. use a CMS to handle its HTML pages, images, CSS  and JS. Nothing really complex indeed.

We must keep the spec simple if adoption is what we want. The KISS principle is still alive.
Cordialement, Laurent

Le 27 juil. 2017 à 22:12, Hugh McGuire <hugh@rebus.foundation<mailto:hugh@rebus.foundation>> a écrit :
It might be important for certain applications that a web publication not change, but I don’t think that’s a spec’s concern is it? There are plenty of WP applications that you would expect to change over time, and plenty of WP applications we can’t even imagine yet.

My plea would be for us to focus on developing a minimum viable definition/spec … the bare minimum need to say: is this a WP? Yes/no? A WP should be as easy as possible to make a WP.

And then as publishers need certain functionality, they can build that into their WPs, which can work its way into the spec if enough publishers agree.


Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 21:20:56 UTC

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