First Editor's Draft of EPUB 3.1 now available

KevinH · 02-11-2016, 09:55 AM

FYI, the first editor's draft for the epub 3.1 standard is now open for review. They are looking for comments and feedback. The IDPF working group really does not have any representation from ebook users, self-publishers or small epub production/publishing houses. They really need your input.

http://idpf.org/news/first-editors-d...ble-for-review

The big change is that they are moving away from proprietary epub3.0. elements and xhtml towards html5 and open web standards meaning that web browser engines like gecko, blink, webkit, etc can be more easily used in reading systems, need for precise xhtml5 can be replaced with more lenient html5 parsing, and that many of the onerous epub3.0 OPF metadata requirements (refinements on refinements anyone?) are being removed. Also being removed is any backwards support for epub2 (guide and ncx).

One of the specific changes to to drop all other dc: metadata like description, source, contributor, and the like that users and ebook library software might be interested in using.

Many of these changes are quite dramatic compared to current epub2 and epub3 system requirements. They are floating these ideas as possibly controversial trial balloons and are looking for input to get the next epub version right.

So if you are an interested user, self-publisher, or small epub production/publishing house, there are public workgroup "issues" open for your comments about all of these major changes.

I am sure they would welcome professional / serious feedback on many of these changes.

KevinH

dgatwood · 02-12-2016, 01:40 AM

Here's my comment:

I absolutely agree with tofi86. This issue (https://github.com/IDPF/epub-revision/issues/633) and #644 are utterly baffling to me.

I’m assuming that when you say publishers are driving this, you mean **textbook** publishers—interactive book publishers. For those of us doing fiction, removing backwards compatibility would qualify as absolute brain damage, and that's not just my opinion; it seems to be the general consensus among a pretty good sized pool of independent publishers and content formatters.

As a publisher, I want to create content that will be readable on as wide a range of devices as possible. Web standards are deliberately built in such a way that they gracefully degrade on older devices that don’t support them. For this reason, I can take a modern HTML document and read it in Netscape Mosaic 0.9b3 or lynx 1.0 (early 1990s) as long as it doesn't require JavaScript. It might look like crap, but I can read it.

The reason web standards work the way that they do is to encourage adoption. I know that my content will gracefully degrade on older browsers, which means I can comfortably adopt bleeding edge CSS 3 features NOW. I'm doing this in the content for my EPUB books as well, introducing CSS 3 features like shape-outside on drop caps to produce spectacular typography on the tiny minority of reading platforms that support it, knowing that it won't break other readers, and that eventually users on other reading platforms will gain those capabilities as well.

Without that backwards compatibility, I wouldn’t be adopting those features for another five years, and probably more like ten. So in ten years, I’ll be able to adopt the EPUB 3.1 metadata format, when all of the early EPUB readers (many of which have been abandoned by their manufacturers) have all died from capacitor plague. In twelve years, I’ll be able to adopt EPUB 3.2. And so on. By the time features become usable, they'll be a decade behind the state of the art.

More importantly, Amazon et al won’t have this problem. They’ll be constantly pushing the limits of what the technology can do. So if our EPUB-formatted content has to lag behind by a decade to maintain backwards compatibility with existing readers, our Kindle-formatted content will be light years ahead at any given point in time. This will result in people saying things like “Get the Kindle version. The EPUB sucks.” Eventually, the entire EPUB format will wither on the vine.

If I had my way, these features wouldn't even be deprecated. They would be **optional**. Features shouldn't be deprecated until there is no longer any good reason for publishers to include them, which is certainly not the case yet by any stretch of the imagination. They should be deprecated in five or ten years, and removed several years after that.

fjtorres · 02-12-2016, 08:56 AM

How long has it taken for FLASH to die? How about XP? RTF?
Useful tech lingers, no matter what standard bodies or committees might decree.
And in direct contrast to gold-plating niche-driven "enhancements".
If the textbook publishers want a spec that isn't backwards compatible or interoperable with existing solutions, why not create their own instead of hijacking epub? It's not as if there is much of an epub textbook market and installed base to object to a migration to a different spec, call it Tpub.

Interoperable epub is already in trouble, what with the mutants and forks and the sluggish deployment of epub 3. Strip away backwards compatibility and it just might die right there.

New Coke, anyone?

02-11-2016, 09:55 AM	#1
KevinH Sigil Developer Posts: 8,764 Karma: 6000000 Join Date: Nov 2009 Device: many	First Editor's Draft of EPUB 3.1 now available FYI, the first editor's draft for the epub 3.1 standard is now open for review. They are looking for comments and feedback. The IDPF working group really does not have any representation from ebook users, self-publishers or small epub production/publishing houses. They really need your input. http://idpf.org/news/first-editors-d...ble-for-review The big change is that they are moving away from proprietary epub3.0. elements and xhtml towards html5 and open web standards meaning that web browser engines like gecko, blink, webkit, etc can be more easily used in reading systems, need for precise xhtml5 can be replaced with more lenient html5 parsing, and that many of the onerous epub3.0 OPF metadata requirements (refinements on refinements anyone?) are being removed. Also being removed is any backwards support for epub2 (guide and ncx). One of the specific changes to to drop all other dc: metadata like description, source, contributor, and the like that users and ebook library software might be interested in using. Many of these changes are quite dramatic compared to current epub2 and epub3 system requirements. They are floating these ideas as possibly controversial trial balloons and are looking for input to get the next epub version right. So if you are an interested user, self-publisher, or small epub production/publishing house, there are public workgroup "issues" open for your comments about all of these major changes. I am sure they would welcome professional / serious feedback on many of these changes. KevinH

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Epub editor for iOS?	Lyn2012	Apple Devices	6	05-28-2015 06:00 PM
Epub Tags Editor	Tanjamuse	Android Devices	0	11-24-2014 06:44 AM
Sigil, the ePub editor	Valloric	Sigil	321	02-16-2011 12:13 PM
Sigil ePub editor - where is it?	Alexander Turcic	ePub	3	08-04-2009 05:55 PM

02-12-2016, 01:40 AM	#2
dgatwood Curmudgeon Posts: 629 Karma: 1623086 Join Date: Jan 2012 Device: iPad, iPhone, Nook Simple Touch	Here's my comment: I absolutely agree with tofi86. This issue (https://github.com/IDPF/epub-revision/issues/633) and #644 are utterly baffling to me. I’m assuming that when you say publishers are driving this, you mean textbook publishers—interactive book publishers. For those of us doing fiction, removing backwards compatibility would qualify as absolute brain damage, and that's not just my opinion; it seems to be the general consensus among a pretty good sized pool of independent publishers and content formatters. As a publisher, I want to create content that will be readable on as wide a range of devices as possible. Web standards are deliberately built in such a way that they gracefully degrade on older devices that don’t support them. For this reason, I can take a modern HTML document and read it in Netscape Mosaic 0.9b3 or lynx 1.0 (early 1990s) as long as it doesn't require JavaScript. It might look like crap, but I can read it. The reason web standards work the way that they do is to encourage adoption. I know that my content will gracefully degrade on older browsers, which means I can comfortably adopt bleeding edge CSS 3 features NOW. I'm doing this in the content for my EPUB books as well, introducing CSS 3 features like shape-outside on drop caps to produce spectacular typography on the tiny minority of reading platforms that support it, knowing that it won't break other readers, and that eventually users on other reading platforms will gain those capabilities as well. Without that backwards compatibility, I wouldn’t be adopting those features for another five years, and probably more like ten. So in ten years, I’ll be able to adopt the EPUB 3.1 metadata format, when all of the early EPUB readers (many of which have been abandoned by their manufacturers) have all died from capacitor plague. In twelve years, I’ll be able to adopt EPUB 3.2. And so on. By the time features become usable, they'll be a decade behind the state of the art. More importantly, Amazon et al won’t have this problem. They’ll be constantly pushing the limits of what the technology can do. So if our EPUB-formatted content has to lag behind by a decade to maintain backwards compatibility with existing readers, our Kindle-formatted content will be light years ahead at any given point in time. This will result in people saying things like “Get the Kindle version. The EPUB sucks.” Eventually, the entire EPUB format will wither on the vine. If I had my way, these features wouldn't even be deprecated. They would be optional. Features shouldn't be deprecated until there is no longer any good reason for publishers to include them, which is certainly not the case yet by any stretch of the imagination. They should be deprecated in five or ten years, and removed several years after that.

02-12-2016, 08:56 AM	#3
fjtorres Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,732 Karma: 128354696 Join Date: May 2009 Location: 26 kly from Sgr A* Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000	How long has it taken for FLASH to die? How about XP? RTF? Useful tech lingers, no matter what standard bodies or committees might decree. And in direct contrast to gold-plating niche-driven "enhancements". If the textbook publishers want a spec that isn't backwards compatible or interoperable with existing solutions, why not create their own instead of hijacking epub? It's not as if there is much of an epub textbook market and installed base to object to a migration to a different spec, call it Tpub. Interoperable epub is already in trouble, what with the mutants and forks and the sluggish deployment of epub 3. Strip away backwards compatibility and it just might die right there. New Coke, anyone?

Advert