- From: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:30:16 -0500
- To: "'Leonard Rosenthol'" <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "'Cramer, Dave'" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>, "'W3C Digital Publishing IG'" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
>> higher degree of comprehensive accessibility capabilities and reliability > Things that might be optional (or perhaps not even included in the base spec) > may/will be mandated by this profile. (No, I don’t have a good example, but it > seems like something worth calling out) The progressive enhancement requirement in EPUB 3, perhaps? This makes the publication more reliably usable, which was discussed on the last call may not be a base requirement of web publications when offline. Not sure if that's what reliability is after here, but that's my best read relative to EPUB. >> > with incompatibilities minimized. >> What does ³incompatibilities minimized² mean? > I don’t think it means anything technically at this point, just a > statement of direction (that could probably use a bit of wordsmithing). Isn't this the same general constraint we had for BFF? Should be possible to round trip formats as much as possible. Maybe it should say as much, so something like: "This specification should be as close as possible to a strict functional superset of EPUB 3.1, allowing translations between the two formats with as minimal loss of functionality as possible." Matt
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2017 19:30:52 UTC