- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 02:02:40 -0400
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Bill McCoy <whmccoy@gmail.com>, Dianne Kennedy <dkennedy@idealliance.org>
- Cc: Jacob Friedman <jacob@subsumo.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Johannes Wilm <johanneswilm@vivliostyle.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Kaveh Bazargan <kaveh@rivervalleytechnologies.com>, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, W3C Digital Publishing Discussion list <public-digipub@w3.org>, Matthew Hardy <mahardy@adobe.com>
Hi, Leonard– On 8/10/15 1:59 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: ... > > As with you, we (Adobe) does believe that the OWP is a key set of > technologies that should be available to our customers for their > publishing needs. However, we don’t believe that it is the only set of > technologies as they should be able to choose the solution that fits > their content. It may be that today there is a greater demand for PDF > (or raster) based on designers with print-centric backgrounds and > missing pieces in the OWP stable… Just as a point for consideration, the Web Platform, as well as EPUB, already has explicit and inherent ability to use mixed content and raster images, for those print-centric designers. (Of course, there may be accessibility issues with raster-only, but that's another matter.) So, really, the question of choice you seem to be asking about is having a clear way to include PDF (not rasters, which already work) as part of that mixed content. I'm not sure of the technical solution to that, but I just wanted to clarify that you seem to be specifically asking for PDF support. Certainly, many people, including journals, still use PDF, so it's not an absurd request. Regards– –Doug > but hopefully this group can help drive > the OWP forward and enable greater use in this particular industry. BUT > there will always be a need for choice = something that needs to be > incorporated into any real-world solution.
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 06:02:51 UTC