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

Re: magazines and OWP (was Re: Prioritisation)

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:44:54 +0000
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, 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>
Message-ID: <EBDD4064-4503-4C4C-B5D1-2B5E6626BE77@adobe.com>
Doug, Interesting way of reading what I wrote - I can see how you could find that in there.

However, I wasn’t actually asking for that, because PDF is already a primary resource type for the OWP.  If you look at the HTML5 spec, you will find multiple references to PDF in samples and an inclusion as a non-normative reference.  More importantly, in some ways, is support for it natively in many/most of the browsers available today on most platforms.  So I would expect that as the common viewing platform for OWP content continues to move towards the same browser (engines) for both online and offline content, that PDF support would simply be a given.


On 8/13/15, 2:02 AM, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

>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 
>Certainly, many people, including journals, still use PDF, so it's not 
>an absurd request.
>> 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 08:45:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:34:52 UTC