RE: Support for XHTML5

At this point, epub:type [1] is more robust than the Digital Publishing module of ARIA [2], and DPUB is still in draft.  However, speaking as the co-chair of the EPUB 3.1 revision, we (IDPF) are working on moving away from XHTML/XML and namespaced vocabularies such as epub:type as part of our efforts to align with the open web platform. It would not be a good idea to adopt something that is going away.

[1] http://www.idpf.org/epub/vocab/structure/

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/dpub-aria-1.0/


Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 9:50 AM
To: Liam R. E. Quin; W3C
Subject: Re: Support for XHTML5

On 03/12/2015 19:15 , Liam R. E. Quin wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 15:20 -0500, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>  Were we to
>> use XHTML for EPUB 3 alignment then we should also use epub:type 
>> instead of role,
> 
> Why? There's no reason you can't process a role attribute in XSLT.

Because EPUB 3 use epub:type for what role is being proposed for nowadays. We could do EPUB3-but-with-role-instead, but then why not EPUB3-but-with-HTML-instead? If strict adherence to EPUB3 is a goal (I don't believe it is) then it is XHTML and epub:type for all.

Having said that I know from one of the largest EPUB3 companies that a large chunk of their EPUB content is not even XHTML, and when it is their implementation parses it as HTML anyway. It appears that XHTML is not even needed for the production of interoperable EPUB content (to the extent that such a thing is possible).

However having to use epub:type instead of the newer DPUB roles strikes me as a step backwards. I really don't think that EPUB3 is a goal; I think we should look towards the newer stuff from PWP, E0, etc.

--
• Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •

Received on Friday, 4 December 2015 14:57:26 UTC