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

Liisa,

2018年11月1日(木) 22:47 McCloy-Kelley, Liisa <
lmccloy-kelley@penguinrandomhouse.com>:

> Makoto-
>
>
>
> I don’t think that we disagree, I just have a very positive outlook that
> our testing will prove that we won’t need to have that discussion.
>

I think that we do disagree.  I am quite sure that some features of EPUB
3.2
are not supported by any RSs.  I also think that some advanced
features of vertical writing (e.g., tatechuu yoko and handling of character
orientation) are not supported by those RSs which are not commonly used
in Japan.  Will such features be eliminated from EPUB 3.2?  This worry
is already a showstopper for Japanese users.

Side note: I know that some EPUB3 publications are dedicated to iBooks.
If we drop non-interoperable features related to scripting, will such EPUB
publications become non-conformant?

Regards,
Makoto


>
>
> Can you think of any EPUB feature that is only used in one reading system
> in Japan and no other?
>
>
>
> Liisa
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 9:37 AM
> *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: *Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 9:36 AM
>
>
>
> 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
>


-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto