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

RE: addressable identifier?

From: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 20:03:44 +0000
To: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>, Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
CC: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR06MB1883DBB4EFCE057783842A72B2BF0@CY1PR06MB1883.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you, Makoto. I think keeping our options open at this point is important.

Also, a pros/cons analysis of each of the approaches—as you’d mentioned on GitHub earlier—might prove a worthy output document for helping all of us navigation the conversations, narrowing the scope of what we’re discussing, and ultimately providing future folks some reference to why we did what we did…once it’s all said and done. :)

There’s lots to be written, coded, and explored. I look forward to seeing what we produce together.

Cheers,
Benjamin

From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 3:56 PM
To: Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: addressable identifier?

>- assuming that the manifest is an external non-HTML document (read JSON), its URL is different from any of the URLs to the HTML content.

I do not agree.  One option for representing manifests is to augment
navigation documents, which is HTML.

Regards,
Makoto

2017-07-28 1:31 GMT+09:00 Romain <rdeltour@gmail.com<mailto:rdeltour@gmail.com>>:
In another thread Hadrien said:

> "[the] URL [of the manifest] 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...)


I think I was in the "others" group, but I believe there's a misunderstanding about what we're talking about.

What we all probably agree on the obvious:

- a publication has a manifest, which is addressable (it has a URL)
- a publication has HTML content ("primary resources", it seems), which is addressable (each primary resource has a URL)
- assuming that the manifest is an external non-HTML document (read JSON), its URL is different from any of the URLs to the HTML content.


I can see how a UA will want to directly process URLs to non-HTML manifests, for instance to parse the catalog from a store.
I would also hope that a web site pointing to a Publication would use a URL to an HTML resource (so that the link can be opened and rendered in a non-supporting browser).

But these are use cases for **links**, not **identifiers**.

So, my question is: what is the envisioned use case for an "addressable identifier"? does it matter or can we assume that there's no need for a canonical location and we just point to whatever makes the most sense depending on the context?

Romain.

PS: the PWP UCR contains one use case about uniquely identifying a Web Publication [1], but I'm not sure I see to which extent this use case requires more than the ability to link to the content. The UC doesn't make a strong case for the uniqueness requirement.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp-ucr/#unique-identifier






--

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto
Received on Friday, 28 July 2017 20:04:11 UTC

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