-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove advice on HTML file extension #1294
Comments
Maybe we should do this across the board. We also recommend file extensions for the package document, svg, pls lexicons and smil files. |
Yes! |
Ya, I wanted to remove these while retooling the conformance sections, but didn't want to get bogged down in a conformance change. I'll open a PR. |
Proposed Solution Remove the recommended file extensions for Package Documents, XHTML Content Documents, PLS Lexicons and Media Overlay Documents. Add a note in the package document definition section to refer to the media type registration for more info about file properties. |
Did some testing. Made the "Ivan nightmare" file where an XHTML content document used the file extension
Interestingly, when I tried to convert the EPUB to a non-EPUB format, the conversion tool complained. |
Epubcheck doesn't inspect the content to verify the media type, so it's the easiest to fool. Faking media types was a periodic suggestion in the idpf forums for avoiding fallback requirements. |
I thought we had discussed this, but I can't find an issue.
Content Docs says
I think we should delete this sentence, and remove the corresponding test from EPUBCheck. I think this annoys users without helping anyone else. And if you use file extensions to tell you anything about a file, you're going to have a bad time.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: