Re: Conditions for not raising formal objections

Dave,

> All the CSS modules you mention are part of the CSS Snapshot, and thus
officially part of EPUB. We are not going to remove them. The use of
prefixed CSS properties is well-understood. We are not going to kill them.

I am not at all sure.

The CSS Snapshot is just a WG note.  Can it be a normative reference of a
recommendation?  I guess it cannot.  Moreover, the scope says :

> The primary audience is CSS implementers, not CSS authors, as this
definition includes modules by specification stability, not Web browser
adoption rate.

This sentence appears to mean that it includes specifications not adopted
by browsers.  As such, the Snapshot looks inappropriate as a reference in
the EPUB 3.2 recommendation.  Do other specifications normatively reference
the Snapshot?

Then, which CSS specification should be normatively referenced from the
EPUB 3.2 REC?  One could certainly argue that the W3C recommendations
listed in the Snapshot and nothing else should be normatively referenced.
>From the procedural point of view, I think that this argument is sensible.

What will happen if somebody argues so when a request to advance EPUB 3.2
to a REC is made?  Won't people agree?  That is a nightmare for Japanese
publishers.

As I wrote before
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publishing-bg-epubrec-tf/2018Nov/0018.html>,
I
do not believe that the testing process for the REC track will provide more
interoperability. I thus do not see any real advantages in the EPUB 3.2
REC. I do see a huge risk: by sticking to the W3C process, the support of
Japanese typography might be removed or weakened. Therefore, I am inclined
to think that I should try to block the EPUB 3.2 REC now rather than later.

2018年11月29日(木) 1:39 Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>:

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:26 PM MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Then, I continue to consider EPUB 3.2 as a risk rather than
>> a chance.  I also think that the W3C process is inappropriate
>> for publishing, since it pays little attention to longevity and
>> too much attention to interoperability.
>>
>
> Twenty-year-old websites work just fine in modern browsers, because W3C is
> concerned about both interoperability and longevity.
>

Some websites work just fine.  Others don't.

CSS 2.1 abandoned some features of CSS2.  HTML5 (which is from WHATWG) has
abandoned several elements of HTML4.

>
> The charter for the Web Platform Working Group, which among other things
> is responsible for HTML can be found at
> https://www.w3.org/2017/08/webplatform-charter.html. Note that the
> charter does not promise that <p> or <h1> will not be removed in HTML 5.4.
> They won't be removed because they work, they are needed, they are used.
>

>From the beginning, to introduce vertical writing to EPUB3, IDPF did what
would not have been allowed if IDPF had been under W3C.  Like Markus, I
have no regrets.  After alll, rules are less important than market
requirements.

Regards,
Makoto

Here is a list of EPUB features in the EBPAJ profile.  Can the recharter
>> proposal ensure that none of them will be dropped?
>>
>> @page-progression-direction
>> @linear
>> properties="page-spread-right" and properties="page-spread-left"
>> dc:title, dc:creator, dc:publisher, dc:language, dc:identifier
>> properties="nav" and properties="cover-image"
>> property="role", property="file-as", and property="display-seq
>> <meta property="rendition:layout">pre-paginated</meta>
>> <meta property="rendition:spread">landscape</meta>
>> navigarion documents
>>
>> CSS Text Level 3 -epub-line-break / -epub-word-break /
>> -epub-text-align-last
>>
>> CSS Writing Modes Module Level 3 -epub-writing-mode /
>> -epub-text-orientation / -epub-text-combine -epub-text-combine-horizontal
>>
>> CSS Fonts Level 3 @font-face (font-family / font-style / font-weight /
>> src / unicode-range)
>>
>> CSS Text Decoration Level 3 -epub-text-emphasis /
>> -epub-text-emphasis-color / -epub-text-emphasis-style
>> -epub-text-underline-position
>>
>>
> Our charter can (and should) state that interoperability and backward
> compatibility is the fundamental goal of EPUB 3.X. But the charter is not
> the place for specific promises that features that are not implemented will
> be retained. But why even express concern about dc:title or navigation?
> Literally every single EPUB in the entire world includes those features.
> They are mandatory. They are not going to be removed from EPUB. There are
> multiple implementations of EPUB Fixed Layout. Those properties are not
> going to be removed from EPUB.
>
> Is your concern that EPUBCheck will reject some EPUBs that were valid
> before, although the features in question didn't actually work? Let's deal
> with that if it becomes a problem, during CR. Otherwise we are just arguing
> about hypotheticals.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>