Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Do I understand you to be saying that this means that even though FC isn't in synch with ePUBcheck, we're going to leave it as-is?
|
That is correct. FC isn't doing anything wrong. FC is an EPUB validation tool that checks for common (not all) errors in an EPUB file according to the (at this time) EPUB 2 spec.
Adding in a check that to generate an error based upon (what appears to be) incorrect behavior on ePubCheck part is absurd. FC isn't trying to be an ePubCheck clone and it's wrong to do things wrong simply because ePubCheck does it that way. It's also impossible to determine how ePubCheck will handle each and every situation without simply being ePubCheck.
It's unfortunate that stores require validation with ePubCheck before they will allow uploading a file but that's there possibility. However, you need to deal with their policies. Just like how it's fortunate that Apple has decided to create and require use of their own fork of EPUB.
I'll also point out that these stores are using ePubCheck 3 which is currently marked as a beta.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jellby
It might issue a warning, though, as it does with "unused" files.
|
I don't think warnings are appropriate in this case. With unused files you've explicitly marked (by adding them to the OPF) that you want them used. Hence the warning. In this case there are plenty of files that you would add to the EPUB and not actually want or need them listed in the manifest.
Also, lets say warning are appropriate, here is where it gets fun. ePubCheck ignores files in certain places within the EPUB. So where do we draw the line about what get's warned on and what doesn't especially when un-manifested are perfectly legitimate.