On 11/05/2011, at 8:05 AM, Karl Dubost <[email protected]> wrote: > Sylvia, > > -everything > +cc: www-archive > Thread origin: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/thread.html#msg135 > > Le 10 mai 2011 à 17:32, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : >> Only in the way that PDF, smil, flash, or any other non-HTML content can be >> called "web content". > > Mixing contents which are completely unrelated. > >> IMO they are not a native part of the web, but an adjunct and require extra >> plugins to work in the Web browser. > > Then I'm curious to know what are your requirements for the Web. Mine are > simple and are three grades. > > * It has a URI > * it has a URI and served through HTTP > * It has a URI, served through HTTP and has hypertext capabilities. > > For example SVG is above PNG as a Web citizen because of its hypertext > capabilities. > >> That you can serve any content from a Web server doesn't make it part of the >> Web, only part of the Internet. > > No. :) To be part of the Web it needs a URI and be served through HTTP. > Internet is a total different story. Interesting to see where you are coming > from.
If all browsers decided to implement support for ePub, I would agree with you. Not worth wasting everyone's time with any longer. Do answer Maciej's question of use case for exposing media metadata instead, which is how this started. Regards, Silvia.
