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

Liisa,

2018年11月1日(木) 21:52 McCloy-Kelley, Liisa <
lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>:

> 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 am afraid that I have to oppose.  No matter how non-interoperable
EPUB 3.2 is, I would like to bless it as a REC.   Eliminating
non-interoperable features from 3.2 is not attractive to Japanese
EPUB 3 users.

Regards,
Makoto


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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto