W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > February 2017

Re: [charter] statement on EPUB4

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:21:49 +0100
Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Dave Cramer <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1261675F-9762-4CA6-85BA-97AF16CDFE43@w3.org>
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Admin request…

Now that the work on the charter has been announced to the AC, there may be several sources of comments, and that can completely mess up the editor of the charter (i.e., yours truly). Would it be possible to make it sure that discussions like these would occur mostly as issues on the charter repo in the future? It would certainly make my, but also the reviewers', job easier… I realize that there may be 'higher' level discussions that may not really fit the issues' structure and may make it necessary to use this mailing list. I am fine with that, but let us try to minimize these cases. Thanks...

There are, actually, two open issues already (#12[1] and #8[2]) that are very much related to this very same topic…

Cheers

Ivan

[1] https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/12
[2] https://github.com/w3c/dpubwg-charter/issues/8



> On 14 Feb 2017, at 20:30, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> 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
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704





Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 08:22:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:37 UTC