Section
https://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub34/annotations/#best-practices-for-reading-systems
Describe the problem
In the best practices section, there are a number of statements that sound normative (as mentioned in issue #2974). Some of these may not need to be normative, but others seem like they should be.
Some examples:
https://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub34/annotations/#exporting-annotations-as-a-detached-file
They MAY enter a title for the annotation set (empty by default). Such a title SHOULD become the exported filename.
They MUST be able to choose the directory in which the annotation set will be stored.
The file extension MUST be .annotation .
It might be helpful for reading systems to have normative, consistent requirements in implementing annotations, in addition to best practices, but I would like input from reading systems!
Describe the fix or new feature you propose
No response
Section
https://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub34/annotations/#best-practices-for-reading-systems
Describe the problem
In the best practices section, there are a number of statements that sound normative (as mentioned in issue #2974). Some of these may not need to be normative, but others seem like they should be.
Some examples:
https://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub34/annotations/#exporting-annotations-as-a-detached-file
It might be helpful for reading systems to have normative, consistent requirements in implementing annotations, in addition to best practices, but I would like input from reading systems!
Describe the fix or new feature you propose
No response