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

Re: [AudioTF] Agenda 2018-12-14

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 14:15:35 +0100
Cc: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <79C23DA9-77C1-4DFA-88C4-2A0DB4E3C9C1@w3.org>
To: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
O.k.

Note that, from an administrative point of view, we are not supposed to provide a packaging _recommendation_, per charter. I think what we can do is:

- create an OCF X (say, your option 3) and publish it as a W3C Note for now. Also based on the fact that Web Packaging is way down the line, and we need something _now_.

- in 1-2 years, when Web Publishing is out (and the WG, if it still exists, will have to be rechartered anyway) we will have a look at the experiences and we may decide to publish OCF X as a separate recommendation. Or not, because we will say that people should move to Web Packaging. But that is not something we have to think about now.

As for the various options below… let us see on the call (I will join this time).

Ivan


> On 14 Dec 2018, at 13:22, Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org <mailto:laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> what is the difference between options 1 and 3? It strikes me as being essentially the same…
> 
> No, option 1 means that a create a spec which is mostly saying "we use zip, with some precisions and constraints ()". This is essentially an equivalent of ISO 21320 written in a W3C way. The issue is that every detail specific to Audiopubs must be written in a yet another document. This is the logic behind the term "lite"; it is independent from the type of content which is archived there. 
> 
> Option 3 is to create a spec for audiopub, which includes details specific to Audiopubs (well-know locations, mimetype and extension).
> 
> Option 2 is to create a spec which englobe both EPUB needs and audiopub needs, this is why we need separate sections inside this doc. 
> 
> Note that I'm in favor of option 3, and I believe this will be at the end a specification for EPUB 4 (-> OCF 4).
> 
> Laurent
>  
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>>> On 14 Dec 2018, at 13:01, Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org <mailto:laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 14 déc. 2018 à 02:48, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com <mailto:dauwhe@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 7:48 PM Garth Conboy <garth@google.com <mailto:garth@google.com>> wrote:
>>>> 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".
>>>> 
>>>> Certainly the easiest way to understand my name is to start with Garth's name. Replace the "G" with a "D", delete the "r", replace "th" with "ve", replace "o" with "r", add an "a", change "n" to "m", delete the "b", and replace "oy" with "er".  Simple!
>>>> 
>>>> :)
>>> I agree with Dave, it cannot be a "hack". 
>>> 
>>> If we decide re-using OCF for packaged audiopubs, we have to make a choice between three solutions:
>>> 
>>> 1- "OCF-lite": we remove EPUB 2/3 features (i.e. META_INF and its *.xml content  + file extension + mimetype) from the OCF 3.2 spec and we define in a new document the specificities of packaged audiopubs, i.e. well-known locations for the manifest and the entry page + file extension + mimetype. We may decide that the signature file becomes optional. We may decide to use later the same recipe for expressing EPUB specificities. 
>>> 
>>> 2- "OCF 3.3": we make an evolution of OCF 3.2 by formatting the doc in three parts: a core (= OCF-lite), an EPUB extension (with META_INF), an audiopub extension (with well-known locations for the json manifest and the entry page). The extension must stay .epub.
>>> 
>>> 3- "OCF for audiopubs": we  remove EPUB 2/3 features (i.e. META_INF and its *.xml content) from the OCF 3.2 spec, and insert in this very document the specificities of packaged audiopubs. We also define here an extension and mimetype. Note that any other type of Web Publications can be packaged like this: we have in fact here a packaging solution for EPUB 4 ...
>>> 
>>> In all cases, we may decide that the signature file becomes optional. In the third case we may decide that the signature file is removed.
>>> 
>>> Could we discuss these three options during the call?
>>> 
>>> Laurent
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
>> 
> 


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


Received on Friday, 14 December 2018 13:15:42 UTC

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