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

Re: Pursuing the wrong goal? (was Re: A followup/writeup on our Monday discussions (was Re: Continuing discussion on Polyfills))

From: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 03:08:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+KS-10xVs9ywFD8srGxrwRMYcyYQZ0ygpCz53SeEtzCsMSvGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com>, "Ruffilo, Nick" <Nick.Ruffilo@ingramcontent.com>, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
>
>  This is where I lose consistency of logic between web pubs and WAM. The
> display property is only used when relaunching the app, unless I'm
> misunderstanding the section. So why for a web pub would it take effect in
> an active browsing session if nothing else happens?
>

Right, to trigger the behaviour associated to display: "publication" you'd
have to "install" the publication first.

There's no concept that I'm aware of that would trigger a display mode
without a prior installation (and then you need to launch the Web App
again, from the homescreen icon for example). That's why the recent
additions to the WP draft include an affordance to trigger a publication
display mode.

There's another problem as well associated to the display-mode media query:
I don't see how dedicated apps (native or web) could use it at all.
Web apps for readers mostly rely on iframes, while native apps are usually
built on top of one or more webviews. There's no way to "set" a value for a
display-mode (which is quite understandable), which means that in the
example that I provided in my previous email, such apps would be stuck with
the same behaviour as a non-WP aware UA.


And do we need to define the publication mode in the same specification
> that we're defining the web pub manifest, or only establish the value and
> give it a general description like the WAM modes?
>
>
>
> I didn't mean to suggest we not consider affordances at all, only that we
> break them free so that they can be defined in the manner and speed that
> best fits the ability to realize such a mode and what it offers.
>
>
>
> I'm not convinced of my own questioning here, but what I'm wondering is
> whether there is a way to move forward on what we can agree on without
> getting caught up in the part we don't?
>

We're probably spending too much time discussing "how" things could be
handled.

IMO, we need to figure out a full list of affordances and broadly define
them. If we can't figure this out, I guess that we'll have to split things
up, but there's a real risk in terms of consistency between implementations.

Hadrien
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2018 03:02:51 UTC

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