W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > October 2017

Re: (Experimental) W3C document dependencies' roadmap for publishing

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 11:32:20 +0900
Message-Id: <A7FA26F1-6AF2-40A3-9F86-715E31B92473@rivoal.net>
Cc: Jiminy Panoz <jiminy@chapalpanoz.com>, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 16:19, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:18, Jiminy Panoz <jiminy@chapalpanoz.com <mailto:jiminy@chapalpanoz.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Ivan,
>> 
>> I can indeed relate, I’m trying to keep a list of modules which are likely to impact EPUB 3.1 at some point, hence the Readium CSS project, and it’s super painful. 
>> 
>> To clarify, this is the reason why I tried to find some “scope” in CSS Modules in the first place; I was wondering where the limit should be drawn. Basically, all CSS modules dealing with layout and text are related to publishing.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Yes. That being said, it would probably of help if the large number of CSS modules (and I am sure that list will grow) would have a decent categorization from our point of view, shown on that page. But I need help for this, I certainly do not have a deep enough knowledge of all the CSS modules to be able to do this.

Ultimately, the web platform expects all of CSS, so everything is in scope to some degree.

However, various modules of CSS can be of stronger interest than average to this community, and I think it is worth trying to bring attention to these.

Categorizing them is probably a good idea (pagination / advanced layout / typography…)

—Florian
Received on Monday, 2 October 2017 02:32:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:49:07 UTC