Re: [charter] statement on EPUB4

I like Matt's proposal of a "rountrip" concept, with some caveats. 
The internal plumbing of the future EPUB revision may be different and its functional coverage may be larger. 
What may happen is that a functionality which is "easy" to implement in EPUB 4 appears more convoluted when ported back to EPUB 3 (I'm thinking about audiobooks), or may present some functional loss (think about page transitions in digital comics).    

Laurent Le Meur, EDRLab


> Le 14 févr. 2017 à 20:30, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
>>> 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 Wednesday, 15 February 2017 08:21:51 UTC