Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

media-type requirements on link #1307

Closed
mattgarrish opened this issue Mar 8, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

media-type requirements on link #1307

mattgarrish opened this issue Mar 8, 2022 · 1 comment
Assignees
@rdeltour
Labels
status: completed Work completed, can be closed type: spec The issue is related to a Specification update
Milestone
v5.0.0-beta

Comments

@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

Epubcheck always emits an error on link rel="record" if the media-type attribute is missing, but we changed the requirement for 3.1 so that media-type is only required for resources in the container. See w3c/epub-specs#702

The spec wording is now:

The media-type attribute is OPTIONAL when a linked resource is located outside the EPUB Container, as more than one media type could be served from the same URL [URL]. EPUB Creators MUST specify the attribute for all Local Resources.

If you specify any other rel value, epubcheck doesn't appear to require media-type on resources in the container, but should per this definition.
@rdeltour rdeltour self-assigned this Mar 8, 2022
@rdeltour rdeltour modified the milestones: v5.0.0-beta, v5.0.0 Mar 8, 2022
@rdeltour rdeltour added status: accepted Ready to be further processed type: spec The issue is related to a Specification update labels Mar 8, 2022
@mattgarrish mattgarrish mentioned this issue Mar 8, 2022
Closed
@rdeltour rdeltour modified the milestones: v5.0.0, v5.0.0-beta Apr 1, 2022
@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member Author

FYI, I just made a test to check if a local resource would get flagged (in the testing branch), but there isn't an error in the beta-2 release.

@rdeltour rdeltour added status: in progress The issue is being implemented by the development team and removed status: accepted Ready to be further processed labels Nov 18, 2022
@rdeltour rdeltour added status: completed Work completed, can be closed and removed status: in progress The issue is being implemented by the development team labels Dec 1, 2022
@rdeltour rdeltour mentioned this issue Dec 5, 2022
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@rdeltour rdeltour

Labels
status: completed Work completed, can be closed type: spec The issue is related to a Specification update
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v5.0.0-beta
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@rdeltour @mattgarrish