- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 08:36:09 +0200
- To: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Markus Gylling <markus.gylling@gmail.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <20F6FCF3-9DD3-4817-BD3D-BAF3FB6D51BB@w3.org>
On 09 May 2014, at 18:39 , Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote: > A few comments: > > [1] I had to Google PF Working Group. So many new acronyms to learn! > Oops, sorry. For the others: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/ Protocols and Formats Working group: they are the responsible for the @role and @aria- attributes. > [2] I'm a bit wary of custom elements. I recall many of us spent years > developing vocabularies which consisted entirely of custom elements, > and yet found many benefits in switching to plain HTML. Would this > make validation more difficult? Good point; I have no idea how the validation procedure will take care of Web Components. I guess this is still out in the future. > Is EPUB ready for new elements? Well... we do have epub:switch right now (although that element is not part of the discussion around content & markup). And that one _is_ XML specific, it will not fly if there is an ulterior move towards HTML5 (without an 'X'). Maybe the table should be more nuanced: web components may be a sledgehammer for content and markup. However, the technology itself may be highly relevant for the future evolution of epub, ie, we as an IG should not forget about it. > Are we > now assuming javascript support is universal, even though that's not > the case in the ebook world right now? I cannot answer that...:-( > I would also argue that > anything defined in the same spec as shadow-dom probably shouldn't be > called "simple" :) :-) 'simple' is for the end-user/author. Once the element is defined and well documented, it should be very easy to use for authors, and that is, after all, the most important point. It is not 'simple' for implementers, but that is another category of users... All in all, web components, if used at all, should clearly be used sparingly and I agree we should probably avoid using them for the content & layout issues. But they may come very important elsewhere (eg, the widget work in EDUPUB?) Ivan > > Dave > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> As agreed with Markus and Liza, I have just added these comments to the wiki page: >> >> https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/StructuralSemantics >> >> with the proviso that these are _not_ comments reflecting any consensus... >> >> Ivan >> >> On 08 May 2014, at 13:45 , Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Markus, Tzviya, all, >>> >>> I have tried to give my assessment on the various options listed in [1]. Note that I have also added the 'Appropriateness' feature, as discussed on the call. My assessment is attached as a text file. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/StructuralSemantics#Approaches:Solution_Criteria_and_Options >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D >>> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <content & markup.txt> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> GPG: 0x343F1A3D >> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me >> >> >> >> >> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 GPG: 0x343F1A3D WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2014 06:36:41 UTC