Re: [pwg] Proposed Vote for Publication of LPF and moving to CR

I share Laurent’s concerns on usage that will lock the extension and name.

As Colobrio Reader and Readium are the 2 first implementations of the audiobook standard, we should listen to Lars and Laurent when they propose for names !

So I support the reduced poll Laurent proposes : LPF/LPP

Luc


De : Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Date : mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 09:32
À : W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Objet : Re: [pwg] Proposed Vote for Publication of LPF and moving to CR
Renvoyer - De : <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Renvoyer - Date : mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 09:31

+1 to both, but I understand that the lack of the word "Publication" in the spec name can be felt as missing.

For reference, the past bikeshading issues, back in January, were https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/29<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fpwpub%2Fissues%2F29&data=02%7C01%7Claudrain%40hachette-livre.fr%7C9f59a50a9d3c44aaa90a08d768140ec5%7Cf881a2c50a89483181b1c7846c49594d%7C0%7C0%7C637092307663517631&sdata=pRdS4voZMlzzTEwmo5kU4p5PpKT4d%2BO5EEBD8qRE97I%3D&reserved=0> and https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/pull/30<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fpwpub%2Fpull%2F30&data=02%7C01%7Claudrain%40hachette-livre.fr%7C9f59a50a9d3c44aaa90a08d768140ec5%7Cf881a2c50a89483181b1c7846c49594d%7C0%7C0%7C637092307663527623&sdata=4ONTPAfx1dqWv1QduRwp7WrB7WFCaR8%2F89OWmjgTgbI%3D&reserved=0>.

A word of caution about the fact that the name of a Note is of no importance: if the Audiobook spec is successful (and I do not doubt about it) this packaging format will be heavily used, many files will be delivered with this extension (.lpf) and mime-type (application/lpf+zip). If this Note turns to a Rec, no implementer (on the production or reading system side) will accept such name to be changed.

This current name was never considered bad (or important) before our friend Lars came into the loop. And you'll note that in the spec we already extensively use the term Lightweight Publication Package.

So, in order to try to please everybody, I would be in favor to spend an extra bit of time for a poll about two alternative names:

LPF for Lightweight Packaging Format, extension .lpf, mime-type application/lpf+zip
LPP for Lightweight Publication Packaging, extension .lpp, mime-type application/lpp+zip

Note that I don't find a wide use of the .lpp extension (but in some obscure LabelPrint Project File from Cyberlink).

Laurent / EDRLab


Le 13 nov. 2019 à 05:08, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com<mailto:avneesh.sg@gmail.com>> a écrit :


+1 Ivan. LPF is a WG note, the stakes are not so high for naming it. I would like to focus on more constructive things instead of going back to long naming discussions.

+1 to both the proposals.

With regards
Avneesh
From: Ivan Herman
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 23:22
To: lars@mywomags.com
Cc: Geoff.Jukes ; Bill Kasdorf ; Garth Conboy ; Wendy Reid ; W3C Publishing Working Group
Subject: Re: [pwg] Proposed Vote for Publication of LPF and moving to CR

If it makes you (and anybody else) more comfortable: this is a Note, not a Recommendation Track document, meaning that it is perfectly fine if, at some later point, we change the title as a response of the community's reactions. This one is not cast in concrete (I would be more worried if we had to change the titles for a rec track document).

Cheers

Ivan