W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > February 2018

Re: Continuing discussion on Polyfills

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:08:45 +0100
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, Jeff Buehler <jeff.buehler@knowbly.com>, Deborah Kaplan <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A6ADF371-D61E-4C52-820C-5A076AE8FF9D@w3.org>
To: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, "Ruffilo, Nick" <Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com>

> On 6 Feb 2018, at 16:50, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com <mailto:byoung@bigbluehat.com>> wrote:
> Nick,
> What you've described so far sounds a lot like a static site generator, such as Jekyll: https://jekyllrb.com/ <https://jekyllrb.com/>
… which we also use for the WG's home page:-)

> Authors write simple (stupid) content-centric document (typically Markdown) and organize them into a certain structure and then the tooling does the rest (outputs HTML, adds scripts and polyfills, etc).
> One such static site generator that does all kinds of book-ish things is https://www.gitbook.com/ <https://www.gitbook.com/>
> Their tooling is open source https://github.com/GitbookIO/gitbook <https://github.com/GitbookIO/gitbook> (Apache License 2.0) and can be used to generate PDFs, EPUBs, sites, etc.
> Is what you're proposing essentially this same idea?

While this is indeed important and useful, I am not sure this is a topic of this working group. Just as the EPUB standard does not care whether the content is created on-the-fly somewhere, the same holds for the WP…

Nick,  I think I understand what you mean: the server expands the simple HTML content by adding a reference to a script in the fly. Which is perfectly fine, and may be a good solution for deployment for publishers, but it is again orthogonal to the concerns of this Working Group imho…


> Cheers,
> Benjamin
> --
> http://bigbluehat.com/ <http://bigbluehat.com/>
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung <http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung>
> From: Ruffilo, Nick <Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com <mailto:Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 9:56:02 AM
> To: Hadrien Gardeur; Jeff Buehler
> Cc: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net <mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; W3C Publishing Working Group
> Subject: Re: Continuing discussion on Polyfills
> I like the way this is presented and said.
> Responding to a previous note from Ivan – When I was talking about Polyfills, I was not referring to anything on the back-end.  What I was recommending is that a back-end script is what injects any polyfills into the documents.  Once I have the example, it will be more clear.
> And while everyone might not have access to a customizable server, I promise you that if there is value – services will pop up to make it easier.  When the web first started, servers were expensive, but services like Geocities gave you a small chunk of space on their servers so you could get started.  Publishing is not easy, and that’s OK.  I believe we need to focus on making the overall process as Logical, accessible, and future-proof as possible.
> As for all the Accessibility feedback – thank you.  I hear it loud and clear.
> -Nick
> From: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com <mailto:hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 4:33 AM
> To: Jeff Buehler <jeff.buehler@knowbly.com <mailto:jeff.buehler@knowbly.com>>
> Cc: "deborah.kaplan@suberic.net <mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>" <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net <mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>>, "Ruffilo, Nick" <Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com <mailto:Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com>>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-publ-wg@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Continuing discussion on Polyfills
> IMO we should separate things on the authoring side from the user agent side.
> Authoring
> A Web Publication MUST be entirely readable without any kind of polyfill, extension or specific browser support.
> This means that all resources should be reachable through navigation, ideally in a sequence that follows the reading order.
> For every other affordance (I'm working on those in the lifecycle branch <https://github.com/w3c/wpub/pull/130>), the author MAY attempt to support them from the entry page (HTML document returned by the WP address). This can be achieved by pointing to a Web App from that page.
> User agent
> A WP aware user agent SHOULD enhance the experience of reading a Web Publication by providing additional affordances that won't clash with the author's intent (easier said than done, user settings for example are very difficult to handle).
> IMO, presentation and navigation affordances MUST only enhance resources that are within the scope of the WP which means:
> all resources listed in the default reading order and list of resources
> but this excludes the entry page or any other resource not listed in our collections
> For resources that are not within the scope of a WP, a user agent MAY provide two other affordances instead:
> switch to publication mode
> add to the list of publications

Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2018 16:09:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:21 UTC