Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I agree with Benoît that this might be a good idea and consistent with our
position on
acquisition links (having a generic element).
It would also make things slightly complicated for current catalogs and clients
since
most of them already use the existing rel values (http://opds-spec.org/cover
and
http://opds-spec.org/cover). If we consider to move forward in that direction,
I'll
keep the Feedbooks catalog compatible with the old spec for a month after the
release
of 1.0 and then switch to the new rel values.
Original comment by hadrien....@gmail.com
on 21 May 2010 at 3:56
Original comment by abdela...@gmail.com
on 25 May 2010 at 5:43
Original comment by abdela...@gmail.com
on 25 May 2010 at 5:44
I am much in favor of allowing vector-graphic types for images.
If an opds-feed reader cannot accept, say, SVG should it be labeled
non-compliant?
Or is it better to provide a fallback mechanism for vector graphics formats --
"if you cannot render this [SVG|EPS|FXG|XAML] file use this bitmapped file
instead."
For that matter, if a reader is using a reader based on WebKit or Gecko (or
based in a browser like Bookworm) there's no reason the vector-graphics might
not be animated. Nor any reason why video couldn't be supplied or linked to. (I
don't propose to adopt or support this. I'm just sayin' ... :-) As long as a
fallback is provided, I think this would extend the usefulness of OPDS beyond
books and longer into the future.
Original comment by rsperb...@gmail.com
on 15 Jul 2010 at 9:53
"As long as a fallback is provided, ...."
If we're going down that path we need the possibility of a series of fallbacks.
Ideally using standard content negotiation techniques, so we can have a
fall-back from visual to audio for the blind, etc.
Original comment by syea...@gmail.com
on 15 Jul 2010 at 10:33
I edited the spec slightly to require at least one bitmap format, but accept
vector based ones in additional links.
http://code.google.com/p/openpub/wiki/CatalogSpecDraft#Artwork_Relations
Original comment by hadrien....@gmail.com
on 16 Jul 2010 at 10:32
This is now completed in the Spec.
Original comment by abdela...@gmail.com
on 4 Aug 2010 at 4:37
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
zeta....@gmail.com
on 20 May 2010 at 7:53