15 Replies to “EPUB 3.1 Update”

    1. Mostly unchanged. The required support as a linking mechanism in content documents is being dropped, but we’ve found no real evidence that authors were using it for linking between documents. The typical practice is to link to IDs, which is what the web supports.

      It’ll remain for internal reading system use and where interoperable referencing is required (e.g., the open annotation spec).

      1. We don’t need to do anything to allow. As stated in the Content Documents spec:

        The [HTML5] track element is exempt from the Core Media Type usage rule [EPUB31]: Foreign Resources may be referenced from track without the provision of a Core Media Type fallback.

        If you’re getting an error from epubcheck, it needs to be reported there.

        1. Hi Matt – Can you please clarify what ePub 3.1 spec has to say about the following: if (or ) element in some content document has a subelement and both media and track are located somewhere remotely, should track data item be included in the manifest at all? Thank you!

          1. Just editing what has been eaten by your blog posting script:

            Hi Matt, Can you please clarify what ePub 3.1 spec has to say about the following: if < video > or < audio > element in some content document has a subelement < track > and both media and track are located somewhere remotely, should track data item be included in the manifest at all? Thank you very much!

          2. Technically the track element can’t be hosted remotely, only the audio or video. The only exemption for track is that it doesn’t have to reference a core media type.

            But even if it were allowed remotely, it would still have to be listed. Audio and video files (and as of 3.1 fonts and remote resources fetched by scripts) are included in the manifest with the full URL to them in the item’s href attribute.

    1. It’s looking like MP4/H.264 is widely supported enough now that it could be considered a core media type, but it’s a thorny issue to have a patent-encumbered CMT. I’ve noted the lack of a CMT again in an issue about clarifying what we mean by fallbacks, but I can’t say if there will be a resolution in this revision or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *