Re: Feedback on WP spec from Edge team

Hello Ben,

Thanks a lot for this feedback.

I especially agree with the following part:

If it can make sense for web publications to act like progressive web apps
> (installed side by side, responsible for their own offline experience,
> etc.) then adopting the WAM clearly makes sense. If a core tenet of WP is
> that publications only contain data and not code, then this just doesn’t
> work, there doesn’t seem to be much overlap between web publication
> requirements and WAM, and adopting things like link ref=manifest may cause
> more trouble than it helps if user agents can be things like extensions.
>


I'll wait for Tzviya to break this down on Github before providing more
extensive feedback but some of your points are IMO already directly
connected to existing issues.

3.4.1 Default Reading Order
>
>    - We need to simplify what we expect user agents to do and reduce the
>    flexibility and complexity of web publications. From our perspective,
>    everything required to render the web publication should be included in a
>    manifest. It should be the role of tools to be able to extract data from
>    HTML, not reading systems.
>
>
I fully agree with this and created an issue specifically about it:
https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/148

3.4.2  Resource list
>
>    - If taking the web publication offline…Any resource in the default
>    reading order must also be included in the resource list. User agents
>    should ignore the resources not listed in the resource list.
>    - Issue 59: Our preference is 3rd proposal from Matt: Requiring the
>    publisher duplicate the resources across lists in the manifest. Again, keep
>    the user-agents simple and consistent which means specifying independent
>    lists if they serve different purposes.
>
>
I will comment directly on issue 59.

Thanks,
Hadrien