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

Re: addressable identifier?

From: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 01:15:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+KS-10RC-Om5bqmGx6jeXtm51oENLwkhCq+90idnrffOYdrvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: "Cole, Timothy W" <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>, Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> It tends to make the most sense when there are multiple primary resources
> (just not loving that term yet). In the case of a single-document
> publication, finding an external manifest to discover the page you were at
> is the only page seems like a redundant exercise. But then, extracting the
> script data and converting it to json maybe offsets any potential
> optimization embedding affords. (It's tempting to think up
> over-optimizations.)

I'm clearly in favour of an external manifest myself, for all the reasons
you've listed and many others.

I was simply pointing out areas where we have true consensus vs partial
agreement from this group so far (based on what I've seen expressed on this
mailing list and on Github).

Ideally, yes, but this is an inherent problem on the Web and I'm worried
> about trying to do this in the specs this group is creating.

If this is a decision that the author takes when creating a WP and its
manifest, I don't think it's that big of an issue. All the examples that
you're pointing out Tim are mostly problematic because you have to guess
what would be the proper choice.
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 23:16:27 UTC

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