Re: [External] My opinions about the future of EPUB 3.2

Makoto-

I think we need to do the testing to see if there are at least 2 instances somewhere in the world of support for each individual EPUB 3.2 feature. I suspect that there are. That is what I understand to be needed in order to move 3.2 to a rec track and then on to ISO. Let’s get through this and see where we are before we scare people that things might get cut.

I suspect the harder bit for many of us is some of the base HTML/CSS stuff that isn’t spelled out in the 3.2 spec because it is assumed, but is still spotily supported across reading systems. Crazy little things like first letter or first line styles, which work much of the time, but not always and cause more work and compromise and trial and error for publishers to understand how they fail and where.

The thing I’m looking forward to with all of this is the transparency we are trying to bring to the spec and its implementation in all the places we need it to work, not just browsers. I believe that is going to help all of us to get to a much better place of “Don’t mess up!” and even improve significantly on where we are now.

Thanks so much for checking in with your colleagues.

Best,

Liisa


From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:50 PM
To: W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [External] My opinions about the future of EPUB 3.2
Resent-From: <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:50 PM

Folks,

Rick wrote:


  *   The proposals (to create detailed compliance levels in the spirit of the work done for WCAG, and to ‘fix the broken contract that bugs are evidence of’) are excellent, and could build on top of a 3.2 rec track specification.
  *
I also would like to separate EPUB 3.2  and compliance levels.

Yesterday, I spoke with some Japanese involved in
e-publishing business.  In Japan, thanks to the small
profile of EBPAJ, EPUB 3 works.  Thus, nobody is
interested in eliminating non-interoperable features
from EPUB 3.2.  A common reaction is "Don't mess up!".

Therefore, I would like to bless EPUB 3.2 as a REC no matter
how non-interoperable it is.  But I do see advantages of
an interoperable subset (or compliance levels).  Thus, I
welcome a separate specification (possibly a REC) for
such a subset.

Long time ago, W3C create WebCGM as a REC.  It
is a subset of an international standard,
ISO/IEC 8632:1999(CGM).  I am wondering if we
can do something similar.

Regards,
Makoto