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

Re: Prioritisation

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:18:25 +0000
To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, "public-digipub@w3.org" <public-digipub@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C393CBA7-FFBB-4878-9E43-9DEB27BE5936@adobe.com>
Well said, Bill – on both points.   However, I would like to take something you said a bit further…

Here is the key statement:
ideally, we'd like the same file (or collection of resources, whether packaged or not, that constitutes a publication) to be able to behave the same online and offline

However, you proceeded it with a reference to a specific technology – EPUB.  I would strongly argue that the work of this group should NOT focus on ANY specific packaging solution for OWP assets.   There are many ways today to package up those assets – both open and proprietary – and they should all be able to leverage the work of this group.

Leonard

From: Bill Kasdorf
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 1:11 PM
To: Dave Cramer, "public-digipub@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub@w3.org>"
Cc: "public-digipub@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub@w3.org>"
Subject: RE: Prioritisation
Resent-From: <public-digipub@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM

Also, it's important not to confuse "pagination" with "fixed layout." Most eReaders provide a paginated view that is still reflowable. And most readers (that is, the human kind) prefer that for reading long form content. Even reading the New York Times on my iPad, I have it set to paginated rather than scrolling view. Way easier (especially on a treadmill in the morning).

Of course an important underlying issue here is the EPUB+WEB vision: ideally, we'd like the same file (or collection of resources, whether packaged or not, that constitutes a publication) to be able to behave the same online and offline. Best to have the same standard, non-proprietary, ubiquitous infrastructure native to browsers able to deliver that without requiring separate software.

--Bill Kasdorf

From: Dave Cramer [mailto:dauwhe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:32 PM
To: public-digipub@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub@w3.org>
Cc: public-digipub@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Prioritisation

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Kaveh Bazargan <kaveh@rivervalleytechnologies.com<mailto:kaveh@rivervalleytechnologies.com>> wrote:
Forgive me for a very basic question, but it is a devil's advocate type of question. And if this is not the place to ask this perhaps you can direct me to any relevant discussions.

My very basic question is, why do we need to "paginate" in the browser in the first place? Why not keep the browser for reflowing and interactive text, which is what it is good at, and use a standard mark-up pagination system (TeX/LaTeX would be my choice) to do what that is good at. If another system has already solved problems like footnotes and floating figures, what exactly is the drive to reinvent that in the browser?

Again, apologies if the answer is really obvious!!

Regards
Kaveh



I find that reading long-form content is easier if that content is paginated [1]. Much of the reading we do is now on screens, and HTML+CSS is a very nice way of rendering content that can adapt to a variety of screen sizes and types, not to mention the personal needs of the reader. So I think it would be tremendously valuable to have the ability to paginate in the browser, thus combining some of the design capabilities of print with the flexibility and ubiquity of the web. This would make it easier to develop ebook reading systems and give browser users more choice in how they read, while preserving the accessibility advantages of the web.

Regards,

Dave

[1] http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/time-i-spent-commercial-whaling-ship-totally-chang-768

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2015 17:18:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 4 August 2015 17:18:57 UTC