6 ms·
Yes, it is widely known in the epub space that targeting 3.1 or 2 is the more sane option. With EPUB compatibility issues CSS should always be suspect number 1
by ramblurr 3mo ago
Yes, it is widely known in the epub space that targeting 3.1 or 2 is the more sane option.
With EPUB compatibility issues CSS should always be suspect number 1. Using "modern" CSS features and complaining about missing flex boxz grid, etc is a web developer's mindset.
Just because EPUB shares some of the stack with the web doesn't mean they perfectly overlap (or even should).
Hardly any e-ink embedded e-reader devices use a browser for rendering, they all use purpose built HTML/CSS parsing and rendering toolchains, are baked into firmware and updated once in a blue moon. (If you're interested look at koreader's crengine or Crosspoint reader which runs on an ESP32!)
The blog post reeks of overly confident AI prose. But don't be fooled.
- lavela 3mo agoShouldn't a CSS engine just ignore directives it doesn't know? At least it shouldn't fail without an error.
- port11 3mo agoAre we blaming the spec and the author of the post for trying to conform to the checks, instead of blaming Adobe or Kobo for using 16-year old technology that ISN’T spec-compliant? -.-
- qubidt 3mo agoYes. sometimes specs are badly designed. Targeting a constantly moving goalpost for a spec mainly implemented by embedded devices seems to me like, best case, questionable judgement
- cygx 3mo agoTrue, but that doesn't get Adobe off the hook: CSS mandates that unrecognized declarations should just be ignored, so the worst that's supposed to happen in the average case is some layout funkiness - not catastrophic failure.