Re: Increasing the gap between web and publishing or unifying them?

Makoto,

thanks. Some comments on the epubcfi issue:

- Formally, epubcfi is a perfectly valid fragment identifier definition in terms of a URI; this means that, again formally, it is valid with OWP from the point of view of specifications. But this is of course the formal aspect, which does not account for the possible issues on implementations.

- That being said, epubcfi relies on the fact that content is in XHTML, whereas, on long term, the 'X' may be gone. Also, the manifest may not be in XML either, which again raises the question whether the definition of epubcfi remains usable.

- The more general aspect, namely how to identify content (and part thereof) is very much part of the discussions that will have to take place in the Publishing WG. As you say, the starting position should be that every content document should be addressable; and, by virtue of a WP being part of the Web, it is the natural thing to do. But, of course, there are issues on how to do that when packaged, what is the canonical URI, etc; these must be discussed. This issue is part of the PWP use cases as well as the PWP document, which will serve as input documents to the Working Group.

Thanks!

Ivan



> On 14 Jun 2017, at 01:03, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>> wrote:
> 
> I created another (non-exhaustive) list: EPUB features
> hampering unification with OWP.
> 
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mrFNnGUDDSjTHkTlvSBtC2DMGSYGZA5THkDVE31UHE8/edit#heading=h.9i4o28k4goyb <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mrFNnGUDDSjTHkTlvSBtC2DMGSYGZA5THkDVE31UHE8/edit#heading=h.9i4o28k4goyb>
> 
> 2017-06-08 9:49 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>>:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> The whole point of the unification of IDPF and W3C is to
> unify the web world and the publishing world.  But I am wondering
> if we are rather increasing the gap between the two worlds.
> 
> See
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/publ-cg/issues/11 <https://github.com/w3c/publ-cg/issues/11>
> 
> I think that we should not
> 
> 1) Create an EPUB-specific CSS extension
> 2) Introduce more FXL metadata
> 
> People appear to agree that 1) is bad.  But I think that
> 2) is also equally bad.  Remember that some FXL
> metadata  (e.g, rendition:align-x-center) has not been
> widely implemented.  Even when they are implemented
> in EPUB, the OWP does not have equivalent features.
> 
> I would like to recommend two actions.
> 
> First, we  should provide a detailed prioritized requirement list
> and request the CSS WG to address them. Paged media should
> be top in the list.  A recent submission [1] by Vivliostyle is hopefully
> useful.
> 
> Second, we should study EPUB features (e.g., media overlay)
> missing in OWP, and request the entire W3C to address them.
> See my list [2] of such features.
> 
> Regards,
> Makoto
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/Submission/2017/01/ <https://www.w3.org/Submission/2017/01/>
> [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MY_qIkT8AD6m-M4mEUy7dr3jTH56Eiafdj6E2X6FsIQ/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MY_qIkT8AD6m-M4mEUy7dr3jTH56Eiafdj6E2X6FsIQ/edit>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
> 
> Makoto


----
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: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>