W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > December 2018

Re: [AudioTF] Agenda 2018-12-14

From: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 19:48:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CADExNBP=wWOV1h5mkq7ScP3PdWgOR6==+27__DuZBsaM6G0HOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, Brady Duga <duga@google.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com>, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
I didn't think anybody was pondering/proposing changes to OCF 3.2 that
would impact EPUB.  "OCF Lite" should be a different animal for audiobook
packaging, drafted, likely, as a set of removals from OCF 3.2 -- "point to
OCF 3.2, but disregard X, Y, and Z".

Best,
   Garth



On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 6:45 PM Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I'm actually surprised how much these discussions are focused on
> mimetype rather than on the other requirement for OCF: the presence of
> META-INF/container.xml
>
>
>
> Isn’t that because the suggestion was made that OCF 3.2 could be hacked at
> to make this new packaging viable without producing a new standard? I don’t
> agree with the approach (modifying OCF 3.2), because the impacts on reading
> systems (and elsewhere) are obviously real, but it seems like the only
> “lite” change that might have been feasible. Making the container.xml file
> optional within EPUB 3 would certainly break things.
>
>
>
> But if the end goal is to produce a different standard, then I suppose
> anything is doable. Aside from EPUB not having a common path/naming for the
> package file, the only other feature it enabled was pointing at multiple
> renditions of the content. But that has never taken off.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>
> *Sent:* December 13, 2018 19:11
> *To:* Brady Duga <duga@google.com>
> *Cc:* Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>; Ric Wright <
> rkwright@geofx.com>; Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>; Matt Garrish <
> matt.garrish@gmail.com>; W3C Publishing Working Group <
> public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [AudioTF] Agenda 2018-12-14
>
>
>
> I'm actually surprised how much these discussions are focused on mimetype
> rather than on the other requirement for OCF: the presence of
> META-INF/container.xml
>
>
>
> Since we would have well-known locations both for the entry page (
> index.html) and the manifest (manifest.jsonld), does anyone have a good
> reason why META-INF/container.xml should remain a requirement?
>
Received on Friday, 14 December 2018 00:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:33 UTC