- From: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:33:21 +0100
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>, W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
>> >>> I would like to see EPUB stay where it is – in the CG. .... >>> The same is true for Audiobooks – it should also take place in a CG where it can grow and prosper. >> >> I must disagree for audiobooks, at least partially. There are two aspects on audiobook distribution to the end-user: offline (using OCF-lite) and online: in the online case audiobooks are a specific case of Web Publications. The WG must work on it, and may better do it sooner than later. >> >> If the W3C does not accept offline use cases as decent use cases because useful for the publishing industry, we can develop OCF-lite outside of the W3C (or as a CG), with another body to host the specification (see OPDS or Readium LCP). Jeff said: > I would think that W3C could accept offline use cases. What is the problem with them? > When I read, from Leonard "Publishing@W3C is about bringing traditional publishing capabilities and affordances to the web for *everyone*", plus the many discussions in the WG about using only core OWP technologies for Web Publications, plus the pressure to use exclusively the Web Packaging Work in progress as a packaging mechanism etc. I suspect that any format which will be presented as a B2B interchange format + a download format for end users will face severe pushback from a part of the W3C membership, and maybe the TAG. It may be just a matter of communication, but even in the Publishing WG, good communication is not always guaranteed. The issue is the same for OCF-lite and EPUPB 3.2 as a REC.
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2018 06:33:52 UTC