Re: PROPOSAL: scope of Web Publications spec should be minimized

Le 26/06/2017  17:39, Bill McCoy a crit :

> I believe that the core gap in OWP that WP needs to fill is the lack of
> any definition of a multi-resource ordered collection of related content
> (aka publication). 

The words above are already a source of disagreement because many see it
as a "MANIFESTED multi-resource ordered collection of related content".
I have myself published an online book in the form of several html
documents and a toc. All in all, it's a folder, a navigation document
(but the browser also offers a folder view I could have used), a
dozen of plain html files, a stylesheet and a folder of images. No
manifest, no metadata, and still it's a "publication" in the pure
dictionary's sense of the term. From my POV, a web folder with a top
URL is a publication. A single document on the Web is a publication.
A web site is a publication. An EPUB is a publication. The only
difference between an EPUB and the others is that we don't have (yet)
the mechanism allowing to recursively crawl the dependent URIs from the
uncompressed package's URI. If all of these are publications, maybe we
don't need to define "publication" and we only need to specify what
happens if the top URI targets a resource of a given kind.

Finally, again from my point of view but with my BlueGriffon EPUB
editor's hat on, anything that makes us diverge even super-lightly from
the front-end Web (for instance requiring a JSON manifest) is a
strategic mistake and will make browser vendors flee away. The OWP has
everything we need to put metadata into html, svg or generic xml
instances; we don't need extra stuff.

</Daniel>

Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2017 07:47:25 UTC