- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:08:45 +0100
- To: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, "Ruffilo, Nick" <Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com>
- 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>
> 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… Ivan > > 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