Repository navigation
Remove advice on HTML file extension #1294
Description
I thought we had discussed this, but I can't find an issue.
Content Docs says
The XHTML Content Document filename SHOULD use the file extension .xhtml
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.
Activity
mattgarrish commentedon Nov 11, 2020
Maybe we should do this across the board. We also recommend file extensions for the package document, svg, pls lexicons and smil files.
dauwhe commentedon Nov 11, 2020
Yes!
mattgarrish commentedon Nov 11, 2020
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.
mattgarrish commentedon Nov 11, 2020
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.
dauwhe commentedon Nov 12, 2020
Did some testing. Made the "Ivan nightmare" file where an XHTML content document used the file extension
.svg. The resulting EPUB gives a warning in EPUBCheck, of course, but works in:Interestingly, when I tried to convert the EPUB to a non-EPUB format, the conversion tool complained.
mattgarrish commentedon Nov 12, 2020
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.