Quote:
Originally Posted by kovidgoyal
Because it places a lot of unneccessary burden on content creators for no real benefit.
|
Sticking namespace declaration is not unnecessary burden. Namespaces in XML are just as important as names. This is a slippery slope, the next thing that we will be asked to support is case-insensitive tags, then non-well-formed XML, etc.
Quote:
|
Things like requiring zip file headers be exact or that namespaces be explicitly declared are going a little beyond the level of neccessary strictness
|
We do not require zip headers to be exact, but we do not want to add extra code to support zip features that the spec specifically disallowes.
Quote:
|
Yeah but surely if DE encounters an HTML file without a namespace declaration it can assume that it is XHTML or HTML 4.01 (particularly since if I just insert a bogus namespace declaration claiming the file is XHTML (even though it is not) DE is perfetly happy (as it should be).
|
HTML 4.01??? Why would we do HTML? We do not even have to carry HTML parser at this point.
We do not go extra mile to weed out the broken content, but we won't go extra mile to support the broken content either. (Both are bad for the battery, BTW).
Quote:
|
Ensuring correctness of files should be the job of validators like epubcheck, not viewers.
|
I agree, but neither should it be the job of the viewer to accomodate broken content. BTW, this is pretty much unanimous sentiment in IDPF, because lax viewers lead to sloppy content proliferation and sloppy content makes it hard to write a good viewer, as you have to mimic the undocumented behaviour of the existing viewers.
Quote:
|
Sigh, I was hoping I wouldn't have to bother, but, I guess since once I do this, the viewer will automatically work for LIT and MOBI files as well, makes it worthwhile.
|
The only bad thing here is that it would distract you from other work that you do in this area.
Quote:
|
In any case DE is a little too heavyweight for a simple viewer app.
|
