OCF clarification
| Project: | EPUB Maintenance |
| Component: | Open Container Format (OCF) |
| Category: | bug report |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | GConboy |
| Status: | completed @ 2.0.1 |
Jump to:
The bracketed addition to the paragraph from OCF 3.5.1 is implied, but not stated. It should be included:
The <manifest> element contained within the OEBPS root package file specifies the one and only manifest used for OEBPS processing[; all items referenced in this manifest MUST be included in the ZIP archive]. Ancillary manifest information contained in the ZIP archive or in the OPTIONAL “manifest.xml” file MUST NOT be used for OEBPS processing purposes. Any extra files in the ZIP archive (i.e., files within the ZIP archive that are not listed within the package files’ <manifest> element, such as META-INF files or alternate derived renditions of the publication) MUST NOT be used in the processing of the OEBPS publication.
This was discussed on the offline call with Garth, George, Brady, Peter and Ben. Pending objects, I will move this to "resolved" in a little while.
Moving to "proposed resolution" status. The bold (and between "--new--"s) is the proposed additional spec language for first paragraph following the second "(this is normative)" in section 3.5.1:
The <manifest> element contained within the OEBPS root package file specifies the one and only manifest used for OEBPS processing --new--; all items referenced in this manifest MUST be included in the ZIP archive.--new-- Ancillary manifest information contained in the ZIP archive or in the OPTIONAL “manifest.xml” file MUST NOT be used for OEBPS processing purposes. Any extra files in the ZIP archive (i.e., files within the ZIP archive that are not listed within the package files’ <manifest> element, such as META-INF files or alternate derived renditions of the publication) MUST NOT be used in the processing of the OEBPS publication.
- Login to post comments
Comments
#1
Should we change all refers to OEBPS to EPUB in the OCF spec? I know this is a separate issue, but as it affects the wording, I thought it ought to be brought up.
Otherwise, I have no objections.
#2
Yes, indeed, on the OEBPS->OPS/OPF. There is another active issue that covers that global issue of bring OCF into the "EPUB" world. I did the above "fix" with old terms, so perhaps if could be quick errata -- the other will require new versions of the three specs.
#3
Assigning to me.
#4
Moving to "proposed resolution" status. The bold (and between "--new--"s) is the proposed additional spec language for first paragraph following the second "(this is normative)" in section 3.5.1:
The <manifest> element contained within the OEBPS root package file specifies the one and only manifest used for OEBPS processing --new--; all items referenced in this manifest MUST be included in the ZIP archive.--new-- Ancillary manifest information contained in the ZIP archive or in the OPTIONAL “manifest.xml” file MUST NOT be used for OEBPS processing purposes. Any extra files in the ZIP archive (i.e., files within the ZIP archive that are not listed within the package files’ <manifest> element, such as META-INF files or alternate derived renditions of the publication) MUST NOT be used in the processing of the OEBPS publication.
#5
Time period in "Proposed Resolution" status passed -- moved to Errata.
#6