W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > July 2015

RE: report: iOS9 adds "print to PDF"

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:12:08 +0000
To: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CO2PR06MB57206E3CE191E06F4970152DFA80@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Two comments:

Yes, it's the structure that's the main issue—and the structure expressed in a standard way (i.e., HTML5). That's also fundamentally important for accessibility. So "Save as HTML + CSS" is way better than an alternative "save as X" imo, unless the "X" is EPUB 3, which would be optimal.

The other point is that unless I'm not up-to-date on this (and I may not be), I would be cautious about Apple's iBooks Author format because at least wrt the use of Author itself, I believe there are restrictions on how those files can be distributed and sold (e.g., limited to iBooks). I would love to be informed that that's no longer the case.

--Bill K

From: Peter Krautzberger [mailto:peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:59 AM
To: Larry Masinter; W3C Digital Publishing IG
Cc: Ivan Herman
Subject: Re: report: iOS9 adds "print to PDF"

> Serious question: if it was “Save as HTML + CSS” or “save as X” for
> any other X, would you be less sad, and why?

Top of my list would be epub3,  but Apple's iBooks Author format would make sense.

Given the quality of the website-to-epub generators I've encountered, that seems like a much harder problem. But even a non-optimal solution might provide a better experience than a page-sized PDF on small screen. In combination with something like readability/pocket/etc or "save selection", the content could even shine.

> What data would you have in other formats that you don’t have for PDF?

I suppose that comes down to the quality of the files, i.e., whether they are "plain old" PDFs (glyphs on a canvas) or pdf/a or even using Flash/JS/etc to represent more complex content. Assuming it's just glyphs with positions, then it seems to me almost all markup is lost whereas HTML/CSS-based formats like epub and iBA can retain parts of the original structure.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why one would ship a PDF generator (i.e., for all the usual reasons); but it doesn't stop me from wondering if whoever decided that this is a good feature for mobile devices also thought: "but really, we need a better way".

Peter.



On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com<mailto:masinter@adobe.com>> wrote:
Serious question: if it was “Save as HTML + CSS” or “save as X” for
any other X, would you be less sad, and why?

What data would you have in other formats that you don’t have for PDF?

Seriously. It’s really hard to get down to requirements.


On 6/27/15, 8:48 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:

Me too...

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153<tel:%2B31%20641044153>
http://www.ivan-herman.net


(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 27 Jun 2015, at 16:15, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org<mailto:peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>> wrote:
Just something I came across, https://twitter.com/fakebaldur/status/614794685559742464


Quote: "It’s particularly useful for webpages, since it keeps all the text, and makes it searchable and copyable unlike, say, taking a screenshot."

I admit this makes me somewhat sad :-(
Peter.

Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2015 17:12:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:04 UTC