(This is a follow-up issue of the discussion we had at the Boston f2f. /cc @llemeurfr).
The UA Conformance requirements is currently underspecified, for instance:
It is able to import the Package and fulfill the same requirements as a user agent processing the equivalent Web Publication, as defined in [wpub-ucr] ;
Beyond the reference to a Note (which I guess is OK, LPF being a Note itself!), I believe we should define more precisely which requirements are meant here, and how a UA is expected to process the LPF to meet them.
It is able to expose the Package as a Web Publication, as defined in [wpub];
We don't define "expose something as a Web Publication" in the Web Publication spec, so we need to disambiguate what is meant here.
It is able to convert a Package to an alternative format suitable for electronic distribution.
Needs to be disambiguated as well. What does "suitable for electronic distribution" mean?
No actions or resolutions
View the transcript
better define ua conformance
Laurent Le Meur: https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/46
Laurent Le Meur: issue #46 - I propose we close it to clean the table. I propose to keep 36 open and close 46…
Tzviya Siegman: so the idea is the previous issue will solve this?
Laurent Le Meur: Yes
(This is a follow-up issue of the discussion we had at the Boston f2f. /cc @llemeurfr).
The UA Conformance requirements is currently underspecified, for instance:
Beyond the reference to a Note (which I guess is OK, LPF being a Note itself!), I believe we should define more precisely which requirements are meant here, and how a UA is expected to process the LPF to meet them.
We don't define "expose something as a Web Publication" in the Web Publication spec, so we need to disambiguate what is meant here.
Needs to be disambiguated as well. What does "suitable for electronic distribution" mean?