You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2022. It is now read-only.
Please consult readium/readium-css#32, which has the same title (we'll keep it to summarize the conclusion of this thread in the scope of Readium CSS).
The crux of the issue is that distributors shouldn't ask EPUB authors to harm interoperability by asking constrained EPUB implementations. It this case, the issue is about prefixed properties (e.g. those required for handling vertical writing). But it could be in other domains of CSS, or why not HTML5.
We think that such issue must be escalated to the EPUB 3 CG, acting as a "WHATWG-style" forum for enhancing the interoperability of reading systems. What should the CG do for such issues? can it act as a hub where authors, distributors/booksellers (Google in this case) and reading system developers can settle on good practices?
Please consult readium/readium-css#32, which has the same title (we'll keep it to summarize the conclusion of this thread in the scope of Readium CSS).
The crux of the issue is that distributors shouldn't ask EPUB authors to harm interoperability by asking constrained EPUB implementations. It this case, the issue is about prefixed properties (e.g. those required for handling vertical writing). But it could be in other domains of CSS, or why not HTML5.
We think that such issue must be escalated to the EPUB 3 CG, acting as a "WHATWG-style" forum for enhancing the interoperability of reading systems. What should the CG do for such issues? can it act as a hub where authors, distributors/booksellers (Google in this case) and reading system developers can settle on good practices?
Related threads:
readium/readium-css#19
readium/readium-css#26
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: