- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:41:17 -0800
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF21D18035.9256AC66-ON88257242.00502009-88257242.0050AF77@us.ibm.com>
Hi Marcos,
It is trivial to build an OCF-compatible ZIP file. Just build a temporary
image of the desired ZIP files within a directory and then invoke any-old
ZIP utility, including the ZIP facilities within most operating systems,
WinZip, or Java's ZIP features. The result will be OCF compatible. The only
requirement that OCF adds to standard ZIP creation is that there must be a
META-INF/container.xml file that points to the root file for the package.
The main point of the ZIP sections of the OCF spec was to document
carefully what parts of the ZIP format were required, optional, and must be
ignored, in order for users to be able to create files with standard ZIP
tools.
Incidentally, in my previous comments, I suggested that in the case of
Widgets 1.0, the root file would be index.html. I looked at your spec some
more. No, the root file would be config.xml. This aligns exactly with OEBPS
(Open eBook), which has its own special root file, its *.opf file. When you
look at the OCF spec, notice that the examples show that a file with
extension .opf is the root file (not an HTML file).
Jon
Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Web Architect, Emerging Technologies
IBM, Menlo Park, CA
Mobile: +1-650-926-5865
"Marcos Caceres"
<m.caceres@qut.ed
u.au> To
Sent by: Jon Ferraiolo/Menlo Park/IBM@IBMUS
public-appformats cc
-request@w3.org <public-appformats@w3.org>
Subject
RE: For ZIP packaging, take a look
12/11/2006 10:37 at OCF (Open Container Format)
PM
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the input and bringing to our attention the OCF Draft. I
personally have not looked too closely at OCF yet, but I’ll investigate OCF
as a possible candidate packaging format for Widgets. Like you said, it
depends on its compatibility with ZIP and if vendors are willing to jump on
board and implement OCF specific things (whatever they may be). Just as
importantly, I also need to look at how easy it is for a user to create an
OCF abstract/physical package... and how well does OCF conform to the
Client Side Web Applications (Widgets) Requirements [1], particularly as it
relates to packaging, metadata, and signing? (at first glance, they are
very closely aligned).
Regarding Zip-64, it is still unclear to me why Opera excluded 64-bit
support in the current Widget 1.0 spec input. Anyone from Opera willing to
give us some insight? Despite what is currently there, I don’t believe the
next release of the Widget spec will be restrictive on 64-bit support.
However, allowing 64-bit zip support needs to be further investigated by
the WAF Working Group, particularly in relation to mobile devices/phones
and on widget engines generally.
Once I give the OCF draft a good read over and discuss it with the working
group I will let you know more. I encourage you to also read [1] in the
mean time and send any additional thoughts and comments.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAPF-REQ/
From: public-appformats-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-appformats-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jon Ferraiolo
Sent: Tuesday, 12 December 2006 8:52 AM
To: Jon Ferraiolo
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
Subject: Re: For ZIP packaging, take a look at OCF (Open Container Format)
I should have mentioned that Adobe is using OCF within PDF (see
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Mars) and within Adobe Digital
Editions (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/digitaleditions/), so the
technology isn't just for ODF/OpenOffice/StarOffice.
Inactive hide details for Jon Ferraiolo/Menlo Park/IBM@IBMUSJon
Ferraiolo/Menlo Park/IBM@IBMUS
Jon
Ferraiolo/Menl
o
Park/IBM@IBMUS
To
Sent by:
public-appform public-appformats@w3.o
ats-request@w3 rg
.org
cc
12/11/2006
02:33 PM Subject
For ZIP packaging,
take a look at OCF
(Open Container
Format)
I noticed that Widgets 1.0 requires that widgets are bundled in ZIP. To
save everyone time and energy, and to get the industry all on the same
page, you should take a look at the OCF standard from the IDPF (the
ebook/epublishing standards group). The URL is:
http://www.idpf.org/ocf/ocf1.0/index.htm
This specification addresses all of the complexities with using ZIP as part
of a standard. OCF builds upon another industry standard, ODF (
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office). OCF's
approach to ZIP is designed to be upwardly compatible with the ZIP
packaging used in ODF, the ISO standard for office documents.
One difference from the latest Widgets 1.0 spec is that OCF requires ZIP64
support, whereas Widgets 1.0 excludes it. (Not sure why anyone in the year
2006 would produce a specification that intentionally prevents 64-bit
addressing....) In fact, 64-bit support is the only newer feature from ZIP
that OCF requires.
The primary new inventions in OCF beyond the ZIP packaging used in ODF are:
* For bootstrapping, it requires a nearly trivial META-INF/container.xml
file to point to the root file(s) within the container. (For HTML, the root
file is usually index.html.)
* It defines standard locations for package-level metadata
(META-INF/metadata.xml), digital signatures (META-INF/signatures.xml),
encryption (META-INF/encryption.xml), and rights management
(META-INF/rights.xml), and requires XML Signatures and XML Encryption if
signatures or encryption are used.
The IDPF tried its best to address its own needs for ebooks/epublishing,
but do so in a manner that meets industry needs on a general basis and keep
things as simple as possible.
Jon
Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Web Architect, Emerging Technologies
IBM, Menlo Park, CA
Mobile: +1-650-926-5865
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic02558.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
- image/gif attachment: 29789160.gif
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 14:42:04 UTC