Repository navigation
What files are allowed in META-INF? #1205
Description
OCF says,
All other files within the OCF Abstract Container MAY be in any location descendant from the Root Directory, provided they are not within the META-INF directory.
but also says
This directory contains the files specified in META-INF Reserved Files. Files other than the ones listed in that section MAY be included in the META-INF directory;
I just made an EPUB with a content document in META-INF. EPUBCheck did not complain, and the file worked as expected in several reading systems.
Perhaps we should delete ", provided they are not within the META-INF directory."?
Activity
mattgarrish commentedon Jan 7, 2019
Or file a bug with epubcheck... ;)
The META-INF directory is supposed to be reserved for configuration files like the ones we do list, or so I've always understood it. My vote would be to keep that separation intact and perhaps better explain what is meant by allowing other files in it (i.e., other configuration files). META-INF has never been very well introduced, to be honest, so unless people know it from jar files, etc. it's probably a bit of a head scratcher.
dauwhe commentedon Jan 7, 2019
Although that makes the most sense, I'm worried about effectively invalidating existing content. But then that content would likely be broken anyway due to the differing base URI inside META-INF? It all makes my head spin.
mattgarrish commentedon Jan 7, 2019
I think this one might be more theoretical than practical. In all my days picking apart epubs for accessibility, I've never seen a content file inside of META-INF. There also used to be (may still be?) bugs referencing content outside of the directory that the package document is in, and most epubs I've ever seen follow the practice of isolating the content within a subdirectory. (That came up when we were looking at multiple renditions and sharing content, so it's been a few years.)
murata2makoto commentedon Jan 17, 2019
The EBPAJ profile clearly recommends a different directory (/item) for all user files.
dauwhe commentedon Feb 13, 2019
Perhaps a warning from EPUBCheck if a file referenced from a package document is in META-INF?
murata2makoto commentedon Feb 13, 2019
Do some ebook stores use META-INF for proprietary DRM files?
GarthConboy commentedon Feb 14, 2019
@murata2makoto -- I think Dave's warning would be okay, as any such files wouldn't be listed in the Publication's Package manifest (and FWIW, I've never seen such thing happen, anyhow).
mattgarrish commentedon Feb 14, 2019
I think this contradicts the first statement.
How about a fuller rewrite to also focus on the "configuration" aspect. So change the the following paragraphs in 3.2 to:
and swap your should not to a must not
and then change the paragraph in 3.5.1 to:
That should make it about as clear as we can get.
murata2makoto commentedon Feb 14, 2019
LCP uses META-INF/license.lcpl.
GarthConboy commentedon Feb 14, 2019
Though not referenced from the Publication's Manifest, right? Similar to Apple's old fixed layout metadata? These both would be okay as "configuration" files in META-INF.
murata2makoto commentedon Feb 14, 2019
@GarthConboy
I believe so. It is referenced by encryption.xml.
dauwhe commentedon Nov 18, 2020
Shall we clean this up in 3.3? Looks like we have a reasonable proposal.