Go directly to main content.

Using ops:switch with HTML5

Project:EPUB Maintenance
Component:Open Publication Structure (OPS)
Category:bug report
Status:future consideration

It is not clear how to use ops:switch with HTML 5 elements (which belong to the same namespace as XHTML and do not define XHTML module, as far as I can tell). See http://blog.threepress.org/2009/11/15/using-html5-video-in-epub/

Issue Id: 

I'm proposing that the switch element needs to change, but I'm also suggesting that it's not within scope for a maintenance release, and should be set to "Future Consideration".



Interesting.  This raises a similar issue to the discussion point I posted earlier today -- the "video-mp4" and "video-ogg" <manifest> items clearly need fallbacks according to the OPF specification (missing from the example) -- but, these are resources used only by an out-of-line XML island, which itself has a fallback.  It seems to me these beasts, thus, might wan to get a pass.



I think you're right though, since the presence of HTML5 doesn't mean directly or indirectly that the rendering system can also support either OGG or MP4.

I could have either provided a specific fallback in the OPF for each <item>, or used the HTML5 method of inserting an <img> (with its fallback @alt) inside the <video>. It would be nice to know which is the preferred method.


Assigned to:Anonymous» PNorton


Status:open» proposed resolution

The problem seems to be that of using namespaces & modules as identifiers for the switch statement.

As the required-namespace and required-module are setting up a contract between the document and reading system, they need to be far more precise that modules and namespaces allow. Namespaces are far too broad and vague. (They're qualifiers, not identifiers.) Modules are not common enough to be useful.

Unfortunately, I would really think that introducing some new required-XXX attribute, or otherwise rewriting the contracts between documents and reading systems, falls into the category of future consideration.


Status:proposed resolution» future consideration