[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] EPUB3: how to use base.dir ?
Hi Carlos, Am Samstag, 20. April 2013, 18:16:42 schrieb Carlos Araya: > > After updating to the latest snapshot I'm getting validation errors that I > don't know if they are epubcheck issues or if they are being caused by the > change in base.dir behavior: According to the snapshots.docbook.org page, the last version is built on April 17. This looks not as the latest snapshot release. ;-) However, I've tried to transform my cookbook project into EPUB3 and received validation errors too (but they are different). But this is another story. > [...] > Realized earlier that I had OEBPS as the base.dir and changed it to book/ Right, that's correct now. > With that change made I'm getting epubcheck validation errors that were not > there before: Tip: You don't need to create the ZIP archive and pass it to epubcheck. You can start the validation process right after xsltproc wrote the directories without creating the ZIP archive. For example, if you've used foo/ as base.dir, invoke epubcheck with this option after the transformation step: $ epubcheck foo/ -mode exp It is even possible to validate only parts of the EPUB (directory), also with the -mode option: mo = Media overlays nav = Navigation document opf = package document svg = SVG content xhtml = XHTML content The -version option specifies with EPUB version to validate (the values can be either 2.0 or 3.0). > epub-check: > [java] ERROR: docbook-howto.epub: Length of the first filename in > archive must be 8, but was 13 > [java] Epubcheck Version 3.0 > [java] > [java] ERROR: docbook-howto.epub: Required META-INF/container.xml > resource is missing > [java] > [java] Check finished with warnings or errors > [java] > > I got the validations errors with both epubcheck 3.0 B5 and 3.0 final. > > I'm trying to determine if the errors are caused by the update to the > base.dir parameter or if it's a new quirk of epubcheck that I hadn't seen > before. This indeed looks strange. However, I didn't get such validation errors. I've used the last public stable release (1.78.1) and the snapshot from docbook- xsl-snapshot.tar.bz2 file, both with success. Do you use a customization layer? -- Gruß/Regards Thomas Schraitle