Re: OCF for Packaging (was Re: [AudioTF] Agenda 2018-12-14)

Just a few quick comments from the Reading Systems side of things.  Please
bear in mind that if we change the container/packaging format this may
enable or smooth new uses, etc.  But from the RS side, it is ANOTHER
container/package that we have to support ­ for the rest of time.   And it
doesn¹t really matter if two different packages are ³very similar², they
still have to be supported/tested separately (even if they share much of the
same code). And that support includes:
* planning
* development
* test files
* testing
And the testing is needed EVERY time we make any non-trivial changes to our
clients.  We then need to re-test ALL the supported package formats on ALL
the supported platforms.  This is distinctly non-trivial.  So from our side
there are significant resource implications.  This is NOT to say these
changes aren¹t useful or even necessary, but they do have inherent costs
which may not be immediately obvious.

I might also add that having multiple packaging formats may require a fair
amount of explaining to users what the differences are  (cf. the ³Sunset for
EPUB 2² document) and which they should choose and why.

Finally, also bear in mind that the more packages and resulting code the RS
has to support the more potential attack vectors we are exposing.

Thanks
Ric


From:  "Reid, Wendy" <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>
Date:  Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:47 AM
To:  Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, Leonard Rosenthol
<lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc:  Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>,
Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, Brady Duga <duga@google.com>, Garth
Conboy <garth@google.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group
<public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: OCF for Packaging (was Re: [AudioTF] Agenda 2018-12-14)
Resent-From:  <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:47:59 +0000

Hi all,
 
This conversation is excellent, I look forward to discussing this on Friday
with all of you. As I¹m not an expert on packaging and the pros and cons of
various methods, I hope we can work together on finding a solution that
meets our needs by comparing the options we have before us.
 
https://github.com/w3c/wpub/blob/master/explainers/audio-explainer.md
 
I created this explainer (AudioTF members will recall I mentioned this a few
weeks ago, it¹s now formally part of the explainers for anyone who has not
seen it). 
 
I just want to reemphasize our main goal, especially as we discuss
packaging: 
Create a specification for the audiobook format that is usable on both the
web and in packaged contexts
 
Audiobooks are not just a web product, nor are they just a B2B transaction.
Our spec, our decisions, must reflect the flexibility of the web with the
constraints of the distribution model. Users need options for opening and
enjoying their content, publishers need options for distributing, retailers
need options for receiving and processing files. Our spec should aim for all
of those things, and I think they¹re all possible if we remember our goals.
 
I¹ll be preparing another document for us to fill in as a group to present
to the WG on packaging to discuss the pros and cons of various models, come
prepared!
 
Cheers,
Wendy
 
 

From: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:10 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>,
Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, Brady Duga <duga@google.com>, Garth
Conboy <garth@google.com>, "Reid, Wendy" <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>, W3C
Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: OCF for Packaging (was Re: [AudioTF] Agenda 2018-12-14)

 
Leonard, do really want us to reference a 163 page document
(http://web.mit.edu/~stevenj/www/ECMA-376-new-merged.pdf even if it's not
the up to date version) full of XML for just stating the we use Zip?

 

Laurent



> Le 11 déc. 2018 à 17:39, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> a écrit :
>  
> 
> I know in the original version of ODF they had their own, but I thought they
> had moved to OPC since it¹s pretty much the same thing (as you said, mostly
> minor details).
> 
>  
> 
> At the end of the day, we could probably pick any one of them (except OCF) and
> be happy with it ­ assuming the desire for a ZIP-based package.
> 
>  
> 
> Leonard