- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 22:23:32 +0000
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[Koji Ishii:] > For #1, it looks strange to me. When EPUB WG came to us and wanted to > refer our WDs two years ago, didn't we recommend not to do that because > WDs could possibly change drastically? Didn't we recommend them to refer > at least a dated version, or even have a copy rather than moving target if > they have to use WDs? It looks to me that what you're recommending is to > do exactly what we asked EPUB WG not to do. Did I miss something here? > > As I recall, EPUB was not just referring to our specs but defined their format in terms of specific draft versions of our own i.e. they specified a CSS profile that included work in progress. For instance, EPUB30 specifically refers to the 3/24/11 version of CSS3 Fonts for the syntax of that feature [1]. This means future CSS working draft updates could introduce breaking changes for EPUB, prevent EPUB implementors from using standard engines, require a browser engine wishing to support EPUB to implement and maintain a different version of a given property etc. As Tab would say, such a situation is fraught with footguns. We had a similar scenario with a different consortium that took a dependency on working and editor's drafts and formally objected to our making a change. So yes, you could say the intent here is to *not* put ourselves in EPUB's position vis-a-vis Unicode. We do not want to depend on a specific version of UTR50, or of its data. Does that make sense? [1] http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-contentdocs.html#sec-css-profile
Received on Saturday, 30 June 2012 22:24:04 UTC