When will publishers learn that PDF is not an eBook format.

Even Adobe describes PDF as:

The PDF format as a global exchange document format is created by Adobe and is the most efficient way to exchange information.

This is a "document" format. A way to describe what will be printed on paper... the layout is sized for printing to certain sized paper, usually 8.5x11. Adobe also provided an easy way for people to view these documents with out printing them be providing the Reader. The reader works well on a computer monitor which is where it was designed to work.

In the years gone buy, before portable devices that allowed for reading "eBooks" documents stored in the PDF format have been refered to as eBooks. I know that Manning and several other publishers provide an "eBook" version of their content.

A big POD service Lulu is also guilty of this... all thier books can be ordered as paper or "eBook". The eBook of course is a .PDF file.

I have to admit, the publisher I used for a book I wrote also used this practice. Although he started out with making them .CHMs which at the time we didn't know was a much better ebook format.

Ok, well enough said. I am just tired of reading that a certain book is available as an "eBook" and having it be a PDF.

Perhaps PDF can be an eBook format in the future. But, PDF viewers, espesially on eBook reader devices would need to be able to reflow the text, hypehnate, allow for font size changes. All this goes againts the original design and reason for a PDF which was a container for an EXACT representation of a printed page which could be viewed if needed.

I hope we can stop the insanity.

BOb

I hope we can stop the insanity.



All the insanity, or just publishing ebooks as pdf files? Humanity is all about insanity. It's been my experience that reason tends to piss them off.

There are ebook libraries with a lot of pdf books, some are exclusively pdf books, and I couldn't figure out why someone would invest in that format, but apparently there are versions of adobe that are used on handheld devices that do reflow the text. If something like that were on e-ink devices it'd make reading pdf's a lot easier on them. I think it's the features we care about, not the format. If we could change font size and reflow the text, etc, who cares if it's pdf or any other format?

All the insanity, or

If I could stop all of humanities insanity with one forum then I would certainly shoot for that goal!

Cool. Let me know how it goes. Someone should have thought of this before.

It is an ebook format, it's just not one which meets the OP's current needs or equipment.

I read 8.5" x 11" .pdfs on a Compaq laptop quite frequently (just set them to be rotated 90 degrees and hold the laptop like a book), and smaller sized .pdfs work fine on either my Fujitsu Stylstic or my Sony PRS-505 --- I'm reading Geronimo's autobiography (made available as a very nice .pdf by Jose Menendez / Elegant Ebooks --- http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/ ) to my kids on my Sony (we've been reading biographies of American presidents other notables and had just finished Theodore Roosevelt, since TR authorized the writing of Geronimo's autobiography it was a natural segue).

William

W

pdfs work just fine. As long as they're A5 or smaller, that is.

pdfs work just fine. As long as they're A5 or smaller, that is.

Certainly... but many so called "eBooks" that are PDF are formated for 8.5x11 inch page and they are just to small when displayed on a 6 inch (or smaller PDA/Cell phone) screen.

Even still you are limited to a specific font and font size... so if you don't like or can't read the perscribed layout you are pretty much stuck.

Bob

I think PDF files are grossly underrated as eBooks and not understood at all. PDF books can be fine eBooks.

If they are generated properly, PDF files can reflow to fit any screen size and you can zoom the text to make it as big (or small) as you want it to be. As I see it, the problem is two fold:

1) PDF files are often not accessible to smaller screens because the files were created without tags. Tags are a requirement or else the PDF file cannot be reflowed...Tags can be added to unprotected PDF files through Adobe Acrobat.

2) The PDF viewer software that is installed on many electronic readers do not make use of tags, so the PDF file cannot be reflowed.

I don't care so much about fonts and font sizes when I am reading. I care about being able to see text. I read PDF ebooks on my Pocket PC all the time. As long as the book can be reflowed to fit the smaller screen, I think PDF is as good a format for eBooks as any other format.

I am talking about books here, PDF journal articles are a whole different matter.

It's actually disturbingly common to find that the PDF actually contains no text at all - it's just a really bad way to present a slide show. Some magazines have taken this route and it's appalling. If they're going to ship a bunch of jpegs they could at least just give us those rather than wrapping them in pdf crud.

It's actually disturbingly common to find that the PDF actually contains no text at all - it's just a really bad way to present a slide show. Some magazines have taken this route and it's appalling. If they're going to ship a bunch of jpegs they could at least just give us those rather than wrapping them in pdf crud.

CBZ or CBR would be a lot better for this but then you would have to use a different reader (which isn't all bad by the way).

I think PDF files are grossly underrated as eBooks and not understood at all. PDF books can be fine eBooks.


Fair 'nuff.


If they are generated properly, PDF files can reflow to fit any screen size and you can zoom the text to make it as big (or small) as you want it to be.

Ah, but things things are not being done. Even if they were I would still not equate .PDF to eBook since 100% of PDFs would not be made correctly. Perhaps if we get to that point I will change my mind.

(Also, I believe even flowable PDFs don't flow on any of the current crop of eInk devices.)

BOb

Well, if you are reading on the computer, PDF is not that bad. It's only a problem when you want to go to a portable device that is becomes an issue. I go to my local library that had eBook lending and they have PDF and Mobipocket format from Overdrive. Overdrive doe snot have every eBook in both formats. In fact, that have some of the better eBooks (to me) in PDF only. Though what really annoys me is when there is an eBook I want to read that they have that is in PDF only when Overdrive also has it in Mobipocket.

Fair 'nuff.

Ah, but things things are not being done. Even if they were I would still not equate .PDF to eBook since 100% of PDFs would not be made correctly. Perhaps if we get to that point I will change my mind.

(Also, I believe even flowable PDFs don't flow on any of the current crop of eInk devices.)

BOb

I don't see how this is a fault with the PDF format that people don't generate the PDF books properly or developers don't incorporate the features that would make PDF files more accessible into their electronic readers. Frankly, I don't understand why vendors don't incorporate this functionality into the electronic book reader devices.

Well, if you are reading on the computer, PDF is not that bad. It's only a problem when you want to go to a portable device that is becomes an issue. I go to my local library that had eBook lending and they have PDF and Mobipocket format from Overdrive. Overdrive doe snot have every eBook in both formats. In fact, that have some of the better eBooks (to me) in PDF only. Though what really annoys me is when there is an eBook I want to read that they have that is in PDF only when Overdrive also has it in Mobipocket.

I read PDF formatted library books on my Pocket PC all the time. They work fine and, even though I prefer my Cybook to my Pocket PC as a reading device, reading PDF books on my Pocket PC works out very well. Every book I've checked out of the library has reflowed beautifully to fit my Pocket PC screen and I can make the font as large as I want.

I don't see how this is a fault with the PDF format that people don't generate the PDF books properly or developers don't incorporate the features that would make PDF files more accessible into their electronic readers. Frankly, I don't understand why vendors don't incorporate this functionality into the electronic book reader devices.

Because:
1. Reflowable PDFs are something that's very new and not all PDF creation software supports that feature. When they do, they create a PDF that is even more bloated than the non-reflow PDF.
2. Since reflowable PDFs are new, most readers don't support them. I believe that only Acrobat supports the format - and then only for Microsoft products. So even if reflowable PDFs were created, they couldn't be used.

I could deal with unencrypted PDFs but there are so many technical books that are only available in DRMed PDF. Since there are no eInk readers that support PDFs with DRM and reading them on a TX is ridiculous so I have to buy the dead tree version. One of the big reasons I want to move completely to ebooks is to get rid of my dead tree technical library but as it stands with encrypted PDFs and the inability to read them on anything but a PC, it's not going to happen.

Because:
1. Reflowable PDFs are something that's very new and not all PDF creation software supports that feature. When they do, they create a PDF that is even more bloated than the non-reflow PDF.
2. Since reflowable PDFs are new, most readers don't support them. I believe that only Acrobat supports the format - and then only for Microsoft products. So even if reflowable PDFs were created, they couldn't be used.

Reflowable has been around for years from Adobe. It does eat resources to display properly. I have not seen that the size of the file increases significantly. The bloat, if you want to call it that, is that the reader itself becomes much more complicated. Currently the PPC version of the Adobe Reader takes 8 Meg of memory to install and quite a bit of additional resources when it runs. However it does support reflow and does support DRM on PDF files. It is version 2 of the product and if more than twice the size of version 1 which also supported reflow but not DRM. Version 1 did have performance problems but worked and it is years old from Adobe.

Third party readers don't support it because they aren't really committed to PDF. It is just a checkmark in the list of features. Another problem is the horsepower available on E-INK readers is less than half the power available on PPC devices.

Adobe did a version of PDF reader for Palm but there was not enough horsepower on the Palm so they did the reflow on the PC and then downloaded a results file when made it non-standard. Mobipocket does a similar thing with their PDF to .prc converter that is built into their Windows Reader product.

Current Palms have enough horsepower and the only 3rd party reflowable product in existence is now a free download for Palm devices. It is called PalmPDF I believe.

Supposedly Adobe and Sony are working on a version for the PRS505 but at the consumer electronic show it was shown only doing PDF text files that had no images.

Dale

Reflowable has been around for years from Adobe.

Since only the latest version of Acrobat (for Windows) supports it, reflowable support hasn't been around for "years".

It does eat resources to display properly. I have not seen that the size of the file increases significantly.

I use Open Office.org to make PDFs. It supports tagged PDFs. A tagged PDF is nearly double the size of a non-tagged PDF.

Now, it could be OpenOffice's PDF creation software isn't working quite right, but it's all I have to go by since tagged PDFs are rather rare in the wild.

The bloat, if you want to call it that, is that the reader itself becomes much more complicated.

The bloat I am referring to is the PDF file itself. A document that starts off as a 300K ODF document comes to over 1000K as a non-tagged PDF and nearly 1800K as a tagged PDF. File bloat is what I'm talking about.

Third party readers don't support it because they aren't really committed to PDF.

So xpdf, an open source program for the viewing of PDFs, isn't "committed" to PDF?

Current Palms have enough horsepower and the only 3rd party reflowable product in existence is now a free download for Palm devices. It is called PalmPDF I believe.

Tried PalmPDF. Useless for reading PDFs unless the PDF is formatted for the Palm. PalmPDF is based on xpdf and, at least the version I tried, did not support reflow.

Since only the latest version of Acrobat (for Windows) supports it, reflowable support hasn't been around for "years".


It has been around for years on PPC devices. Reflow in a big PC screen isn't really needed much.



I use Open Office.org to make PDFs. It supports tagged PDFs. A tagged PDF is nearly double the size of a non-tagged PDF.

Now, it could be OpenOffice's PDF creation software isn't working quite right, but it's all I have to go by since tagged PDFs are rather rare in the wild.


It is a problem with Open Office. Using Adobe Acrobat, Framemaker, and ActiveSync to create tagged pdf's does not increase the size significantly. Activesync, by the way, adds tags after the fact.


So xpdf, an open source program for the viewing of PDFs, isn't "committed" to PDF?



Tried PalmPDF. Useless for reading PDFs unless the PDF is formatted for the Palm. PalmPDF is based on xpdf and, at least the version I tried, did not support reflow.

PalmPDF is based on xpdf and xpdf is the best, perhaps only, support out there that is any good. I think you should download again.

Dale

Since only the latest version of Acrobat (for Windows) supports it, reflowable support hasn't been around for "years".

I knew reflow was older than the latest (Acrobat 8.0) version, since we are still stuck with versions 6 and 7 here in the office and I use it regularly (much as I dislike PDF, it is pretty much required in a legal office). So, I did some looking around. According to a May 2001 review (http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1416) of the then-new Acrobat 5.0, reflowing text was part of the PDF 1.4 specification, and was one of several features introduced in Acrobat 5.

Jack

Since only the latest version of Acrobat (for Windows) supports it, reflowable support hasn't been around for "years".

Five or so years ago I used Adobe Acrobat 6.0 to create PDF ebooks that could be read on a Palm or Pocket PC. Adobe makes a free PDF reader for both the Palm and the Pocket PC - these readers have been around for years. Tagging and reflowing the text portions of the books I created was very easy. The hard part was handling the diagrams and pictures in the books, but with some custom programming even those items were handled quite well. [BTW, the diagrams & pictures were also an issue in the Mobipocket version of the books I created.]

At the time, I bought a few PDF books to see how well they worked on PDAs and they reflowed just fine on both the Palm & the Pocket PC, with no additional effort from me. I could not have modified anything in these books any way since they are encrypted with DRM. If you review the document properties of the PDF files you come across "in the wild" you might be surprised to discover that more of them are tagged than you think.

The PDF format is quite versatile and perhaps that versatility leads many to believe it is not suitable for eBooks. Many people create print images of books, magazines and articles and call their creation ebooks. Furthermore, the developers of electronic book readers perpetuate this myth, either purposefully or not, by designing software that does not capitalize on a PDF eBooks tags and by not allowing these books to reflow to fit the device screen.

Most of the alternative PDF software, when compared option-by-option to Adobe Acrobat, is quite inferior. That is not Adobe's fault! These alternative PDF applications generally only offer the more popular options and don't come close to giving you everything you get with Adobe Acrobat (in that regard, you really do get what you pay for).

Even so, why blame the PDF format for this lack of understanding, lack of commitment, and lack of features of alternative PDF applications?

I knew reflow was older than the latest (Acrobat 8.0) version, since we are still stuck with versions 6 and 7 here in the office and I use it regularly (much as I dislike PDF, it is pretty much required in a legal office). So, I did some looking around. According to a May 2001 review (http://www.planetpdf.com/mainpage.asp?webpageid=1416) of the then-new Acrobat 5.0, reflowing text was part of the PDF 1.4 specification, and was one of several features introduced in Acrobat 5.

Jack

Thanks for clearing that up!

Most of the alternative PDF software, when compared option-by-option to Adobe Acrobat, is quite inferior. That is not Adobe's fault! These alternative PDF applications generally only offer the more popular options and don't come close to giving you everything you get with Adobe Acrobat (in that regard, you really do get what you pay for).

Well, they have designed the format so I think it is their fault. When I read about it a couple of months ago I got the impression that the format is not so easy to parse and handle. You could have designed it differently in a way that stimulated third parties to write good applications for it but that was not in Adobes interest when they designed the format.

It has been around for years on PPC devices. Reflow in a big PC screen isn't really needed much.

That's probably why I don't see it very much. I won't buy Microsoft products and PPC handhelds have always been poor values for me.

It is a problem with Open Office. Using Adobe Acrobat, Framemaker, and ActiveSync to create tagged pdf's does not increase the size significantly. Activesync, by the way, adds tags after the fact.

I'm finding that difficult to believe right now. According to what I've read, a tagged PDF has the content in the PDF twice. Once as the normal PDF and again as the tagged version. At the very least, it would increase the size of the PDF by the size of the original content.

PalmPDF is based on xpdf and xpdf is the best, perhaps only, support out there that is any good. I think you should download again.

I'm already using the latest version on my PC. But, as you point out, tagged PDFs are pretty much worthless on a PC system so I wouldn't really have noticed the feature. And tagged PDFs are not common (and the fact that I usually avoid PDF anyway), the odds that I would have seen a tagged PDF in xpdf is pretty low.

In the tests that I did with OpenOffice.org, the tagged PDF and the non-tagged PDF displayed the same. The only difference was the file size.

Well, they have designed the format so I think it is their fault. When I read about it a couple of months ago I got the impression that the format is not so easy to parse and handle. You could have designed it differently in a way that stimulated third parties to write good applications for it but that was not in Adobes interest when they designed the format.

It isn't very easy but it is well understood. PDF is really a packaging of the PostScript language file format which has been around for ages. For example a table in PDF is built using raw lines that are displayed on a page with the text formatted individually to the xy coordinates on the page. There isn't any actual construct for the table itself.

Dale

Adobe makes a free PDF reader for both the Palm...

Yes, and no. Adobe makes a program (that only runs on closed, proprietary systems) that takes a PDF, reformats it into something even more useless and unreadable, and puts it into a Palm file. Then they wrote a program that runs on the Palm that can read this useless file.

Run Adobe's free reader on the Palm, then try to open a PDF you've put on your SD card. It won't work.

The PDF format is quite versatile and perhaps that versatility leads many to believe it is not suitable for eBooks.

No, I think it's the bloated file size (compare 300K for a mobipocket book to 1500K for the same PDF) and the fact that PDFs don't display correctly on the current crop of eBook readers (tagged or otherwise) that have led many to believe that it's not suitable.

Even so, why blame the PDF format for this lack of understanding, lack of commitment, and lack of features of alternative PDF applications?

I don't. I blame PDF for being a locked down, bloated format.

Here's an entry from a blog on Adobe.com that freely admits the points I was trying to make in the opening post.

http://blogs.adobe.com/billmccoy/2008/02/dear_author_ebo.html

BOb

Yes, and no. Adobe makes a program (that only runs on closed, proprietary systems) that takes a PDF, reformats it into something even more useless and unreadable, and puts it into a Palm file. Then they wrote a program that runs on the Palm that can read this useless file.

Run Adobe's free reader on the Palm, then try to open a PDF you've put on your SD card. It won't work.

I don't use the Palm any more, so I can't perform the test. But PDF files work just fine off an SD card on my Pocket PC. I think it is hard to assess where the deficiency lies....Is this a deficiency with Palm, with the Palm software or with the PDF format?

No, I think it's the bloated file size (compare 300K for a mobipocket book to 1500K for the same PDF) and the fact that PDFs don't display correctly on the current crop of eBook readers (tagged or otherwise) that have led many to believe that it's not suitable.

I have not compared a book in a Mobipocket format to the same book in a PDF format, so I can't speak to this comment, but I will look at it and see for myself if this is true. I disagree with the second sentence you state as accepted fact....I read many PDF books and they display perfectly on my Pocket PC. The fact that eBook reader devices do not accommodate tags and so cannot reflow properly is a deficiency in the eBook reader device and not with the PDF format.

I don't. I blame PDF for being a locked down, bloated format.

I don't think the PDF format is any more locked down than any other format. It may be bloated, but file size does not concern me that much, there are always storage cards that I can use to store my files, so I don't feel such a big need to conserve space.

To speak to an earlier point about how much larger tagged files are versus untagged files, I performed a test. I took a large PDF book that was untagged and ran Adobe Acrobat's tag option on it. The file size changed from 39,188 KB to 40,646 KB. I don't see this as a significant difference, do you?

Well, they have designed the format so I think it is their fault. When I read about it a couple of months ago I got the impression that the format is not so easy to parse and handle. You could have designed it differently in a way that stimulated third parties to write good applications for it but that was not in Adobes interest when they designed the format.

What exactly are you blaming them for? The fact that vendors don't make use of the features that are provided? The fact that people who generate PDF files don't understand the importance of tagging the file to make it accessible on different devices? I don't follow that logic.

The PDF format has been around for a very long time. It has changed (more features introduced) over time to address new uses. How can Adobe be blamed if third parties are not stimulated to write applications to use these features? We, as consumers, have quite a lot of power, don't you think? If we press the developers of these devices to give us this functionality, do you think they will be motivated then?

Before this thread, many of the readers here probably didn't even know that PDF files could be used on the current batch of ebook reader devices if only the developers would add the functionality to their respective PDF reader software.....

Is this a deficiency with Palm, with the Palm software or with the PDF format?

The PDF format. Since no other format has these problems.

I have not compared a book in a Mobipocket format to the same book in a PDF format, so I can't speak to this comment, but I will look at it and see for myself if this is true.

Now that I am home, I can do some tests. Here's the file sizes:

Original OpenOffice.org file: 245,881 bytes (text only, no graphics)
HTML version: 657,778 bytes (which I find to be very interesting that it's larger - but it's an OpenOffice.org export which didn't use a style sheet).
Mobipocket version: 343,620 bytes
Non-tagged PDF: 1,859,068 bytes
Tagged PDF: 2,456,199


So starting with the original file:

The HTML is 2.6 times the size.
The Mobipocket version is 1.3 times.
The PDF is 7.5 times.
The tagged PDF is 9.99 times.


I don't think the PDF format is any more locked down than any other format.

Try to convert PDF to something else and you'll see how locked down it is.

It may be bloated, but file size does not concern me that much, there are always storage cards that I can use to store my files, so I don't feel such a big need to conserve space.

It's not a space issue. It's a speed issue. It's simply going to take an eBook reader 4 times longer to load a tagged PDF than a Mobipocket file. Based on my experiments, it takes far longer to turn the page in a PDF than an HTML/Mobipocket eBook (at least on my Cybook and iLiad).

What exactly are you blaming them for? The fact that vendors don't make use of the features that are provided?

What's the difference between a feature that doesn't exist and a feature that exists but no one knows it exists? Answer: Nothing.

You are correct that much of the blame does go on the authors of the PDFs for not making them tagged. But the facts remain:


Nearly every PDF-format eBook available out there is not tagged.
PDF is horribly bloated compared to competing formats, making it a less desirable format for resource-constrained devices. Which makes more sense to read on my Palm: the 250K or 2.5MB? That's a no brainer.
PDF offers absolutely no benefit over the competing formats.
PDF is a "dead end" format. Once a document is in PDF, it's extremely time consuming converting it to anything else.


The PDF format has been around for a very long time.

So has punch cards and paper tape. That doesn't mean it's a useful format today.

Just to keep on the file size theme, I have an eBook from Tor in multiple formats....

993,789 Wilson, Robert Charles - Spin.html
1,370,476 Wilson, Robert Charles - Spin.pdf
736,560 Wilson, Robert Charles - Spin.prc

As we see here, PDF is the largest, HTML a close second, and Mobipocket third. I have not generated an LRF for this one yet so I cannot say how large that might be.

Not that I much care, but pdf does offer one benefit that is apparently scarce - the ability to time limit a book, so that they can be borrowed from ebook libraries. I believe the only other format which does this is mobipocket. To me, that's a pretty big plus. At the same time, since I can't read them on my cybook, it's useless to me. That doesn't mean it's useless to everyone though.

Oh, and to Jon: Mobipocket creator gives an option for high compression, which creates even smaller file sizes. Of course this only matters when you're making your own books.

What exactly are you blaming them for? The fact that vendors don't make use of the features that are provided? The fact that people who generate PDF files don't understand the importance of tagging the file to make it accessible on different devices? I don't follow that logic.


I compare it to SGML and XML. There was not and is not so many SGML applications available and the ones that exists are usually expensive. When XML became popular it became much more easier to write programs that did the same thing that programs handling SGML did plus XML developed further so now you can do a lot of things you could not do before and most XML handling libraries are free or open source.

Adobe has not incentive to the same thing with pdf. They are happy because they have the programs handling pdf that they can sell and they have a kind of monpoly. I do not believe that pdf is the best solution to the actual technical problem.

What's the difference between a feature that doesn't exist and a feature that exists but no one knows it exists? Answer: Nothing.

Answer: Ignorance or Laziness (you decide).

When I set out to create a PDF ebook 5 years ago that would be sold, I researched Adobe Acrobat, bought some books about Adobe Acrobat, purchased and scrutinized other PDF books. Without much research, I learned about Adobe's accessibility feature that allowed me to tag my book so it would be more compatible with small screens. It really didn't take much effort for me to discover that...I'd expect more from a company whose business is creating electronic books.

You are correct that much of the blame does go on the authors of the PDFs for not making them tagged. But the facts remain:


Nearly every PDF-format eBook available out there is not tagged.
PDF is horribly bloated compared to competing formats, making it a less desirable format for resource-constrained devices. Which makes more sense to read on my Palm: the 250K or 2.5MB? That's a no brainer.
PDF offers absolutely no benefit over the competing formats.
PDF is a "dead end" format. Once a document is in PDF, it's extremely time consuming converting it to anything else.




As far as I can tell, most of these are not facts at all...they are simply your opinion of this file format. For me to consider them to be facts would require more research than what you've presented here.

How do you know that nearly every PDF book out there is untagged? Every PDF book I've purchased and every PDF book I've checked out of the library IS tagged. Now, my findings are hardly a statistically valid study, but I've had a very successful experience reading PDF books on my Pocket PC and I do not share you experience or your opinion on this point.

Now I have not used every piece of eBook Reader software that's out there, but I have used Microsoft Reader (probably the least functional reader software in my opinion), Mobipocket Reader and Adobe Reader. Some of the features that Adobe Reader offers include:

I can annotate passages of text in PDF books with my own notes
I can highlight text
I can search the files for specific words or phrases.

As far as I can tell Microsoft Reader is quite limited and you can't do any of these things with that reader. Mobipocket (believe it or not, my reader of choice) can do all those thing except search for words or phrases.

You state that PDF is a dead end format.....why? Because no one has been able to strip the DRM encryption out of the file so hackers can have their way with it? (well, I know someone was able to do this, but they got into trouble for it). That makes it a dead end format? While I truly hate the DRM in PDF books and find it overly onerous, I see nothing wrong with Adobe protecting their intellectual property.

So has punch cards and paper tape. That doesn't mean it's a useful format today.

You honestly believe that the PDF format is obsolete? I read an article that was linked here last week that showed that PDF clearly leads every other format. I think PDF is here to stay and will be around for a very long time. My hope is that one day I'll be able to read the PDF books I've checked out of the library on an electronic reader like the Cybook.

With the introduction of Adobe's Digital Editions software, it appears that Adobe is committed to the PDF format. I am hopeful that Adobe will make this format easier to work with, although I don't anticipate much relief from the DRM encryption any time in the near future.

Just to keep on the file size theme, I have an eBook from Tor in multiple formats....

993,789 Wilson, Robert Charles - Spin.html
1,370,476 Wilson, Robert Charles - Spin.pdf
736,560 Wilson, Robert Charles - Spin.prc

As we see here, PDF is the largest, HTML a close second, and Mobipocket third. I have not generated an LRF for this one yet so I cannot say how large that might be.

How did you create the PDF? There are lots of creation methods that are very inefficient.

Dale

When I set out to create a PDF ebook 5 years ago that would be sold,

Ahhh... now we come to the real reason why you like PDF: to lock down your work and prevent readers from actually "buying" it electronically.

As far as I can tell, most of these are not facts at all...they are simply your opinion of this file format. For me to consider them to be facts would require more research than what you've presented here.

Let's see. I just did a reproducible test which demonstrates that PDF produces extremely large files compared to alternatives.

Yes, my assertion about the number of tagged PDFs out there is my opinion: based on the number of PDFs that I have acquired. I have a directory full of PDFs. None of them are tagged. All of them have come from commercial sources.

Based upon the fact that I have been working with eBooks for the last 5 years using various formats, I can say from experience that PDF offers no benefit over the alternatives.


I can annotate passages of text in PDF books with my own notes
I can highlight text
I can search the files for specific words or phrases.

Our discussion is about PDF. Not about Adobe Acrobat.

You state that PDF is a dead end format.....why?

Because our experience is that once an eBook is in PDF, it's extremely time consuming to change it to something else.

You honestly believe that the PDF format is obsolete?

Yup. It is an electronic version of a paper book. As an eBook format it fails in every way.

I read an article that was linked here last week that showed that PDF clearly leads every other format.

And I actually created PDFs to be used on my eBook readers and compared how well they worked compared to other formats.

Experience trumps reading articles.

I think PDF is here to stay and will be around for a very long time. My hope is that one day I'll be able to read the PDF books I've checked out of the library on an electronic reader like the Cybook.

That won't ever happen. You can go read the articles about DRM to figure that out.

How did you create the PDF? There are lots of creation methods that are very inefficient.

Dale
I didn't.. Those are files as downloaded from Tor from their free eBook give-away.

Ahhh... now we come to the real reason why you like PDF: to lock down your work and prevent readers from actually "buying" it electronically.I think you're "assuming facts not in evidence" there, my friend. :wink:

(As a side note, I know you probably don't mean it that way, but that comment reads a bit like an accusation, and I figure you probably don't want to come across that way, so I thought I'd point it out to you. :nice:)

ProfJulie didn't say anything about her book having DRM on it. In fact her only DRM related comment in that post (that I see) were these two:

You state that PDF is a dead end format.....why? Because no one has been able to strip the DRM encryption out of the file so hackers can have their way with it? (well, I know someone was able to do this, but they got into trouble for it). That makes it a dead end format? While I truly hate the DRM in PDF books and find it overly onerous, I see nothing wrong with Adobe protecting their intellectual property.(emphasis added)

I am hopeful that Adobe will make this format easier to work with, although I don't anticipate much relief from the DRM encryption any time in the near future.

If anything, those comments would tend to suggest that ProfJulie wouldn't have put DRM on her own book. :shrug:

I think you're "assuming facts not in evidence" there, my friend. :wink:

(As a side note, I know you probably don't mean it that way, but that comment reads a bit like an accusation, and I figure you probably don't want to come across that way, so I thought I'd point it out to you. :nice:)

It was semi-facetious. ProfJulie's comment made it clear that she is an author and that her like of PDF is based on an author's point of view. This bias wasn't apparent in her previous messages.

That is a point. :yes: But I don't see that it really had any bearing on DRM in that specific case. She was pointing out that she found the features of PDF to be good for what she wanted to do, which was accommodating several screen sizes, not locking it down. :wink:

Then too, it may have been at a point in time where there were no stand-out e-book formats, but instead just an undifferentiated mass of "new" ones. From that perspective, I'd probably have given PDF a solid look too. I'd guess that that was what drove so many publishers to it: the fact that PDF was the only format in the list they'd ever even heard of. Also, they probably already had the set up to make PDFs and would have figured they were ahead of the game. Path of least resistance and that. :shrug:

Ahhh... now we come to the real reason why you like PDF: to lock down your work and prevent readers from actually "buying" it electronically.

Ahhh... now we come to the real reason why you're attacking PDFs... because people trying to make money like them! Those filthy heartless capitalists!... ;)

Actually, when I first started selling my e-books, I also sold tagged PDFs, but without any encryption. I'd known about tagged PDFs for years before that (which makes it about 5 years ago), and as I am able to easily read tagged PDFs on my PPC, as I have for most of the past 5 years, I saw no reason not to include PDFs in my list of available formats. (I would still make them available, in fact I still make them for every e-book, but there has always been a noticeable lack of interest in the format among e-book customers, compared to other formats, and I try to limit my available formats to the most popular.)

The fact that tagged PDFs can also be read, at any size, on larger and smaller devices, is one of its best traits. Not everyone reads on the same device, you know. (One of the reasons I'm always surprised the format doesn't do better.) And the fact that it is hard to convert to something else (or de-DRM) is not a fault of the format... that's just a personal preference that doesn't happen to be supported by Adobe. I hardly consider that a reason to snub the format.

So I'm firmly on the side of PDF. Maybe it's not the smallest file... and maybe too many people give it a bad rap by not tagging their documents, and making 3rd party software that doesn't support one of the best features in PDFs... but it's still a viable, healthy format perfectly suitable for e-books, maybe even better than some other formats out there now.

Ahhh... now we come to the real reason why you like PDF: to lock down your work and prevent readers from actually "buying" it electronically.

What an assumption you make! I have no personal agenda here. These were not books I authored....it was for a job I had at the time. Locking down the format was not the emphasis and in fact I was not even looking at the DRM capabilities of Adobe. Most of my focus was on making the books accessible to smaller screens. Since PDF is so pervasive, that was one of the formats we used.

Let's see. I just did a reproducible test which demonstrates that PDF produces extremely large files compared to alternatives.

Yes, my assertion about the number of tagged PDFs out there is my opinion: based on the number of PDFs that I have acquired. I have a directory full of PDFs. None of them are tagged. All of them have come from commercial sources.

Based upon the fact that I have been working with eBooks for the last 5 years using various formats, I can say from experience that PDF offers no benefit over the alternatives.

To state something as fact, as you have attempted to do here, needs more testing, and more information about the variables tested.

I think we must agree to disagree. You seem to have quite a bias against the PDF format. I have listed out some of the additional functionality one gets with PDF books, but you have not even acknowledged that. Your tests, honestly, seem to be slanted toward the negatives here. I, personally, do not care for the PDF format and have not purchased many books in this format. In fact I avoid purchasing books in PDF format as much as possible. But it is not because the format can not be used as a legitimate eBook. My aversion to PDF is a reaction to its onerous DRM encryption and a lack of support by Adobe to address DRM problems.

But the fact remains that PDF is a everywhere and many times, it is the only electronic format that one can get books in.

Our discussion is about PDF. Not about Adobe Acrobat.

Our discussion may be about PDF but how can one talk about PDF files without talking about software? Adobe set the standard for the PDF format and Adobe really holds the cards to the additional features that PDF offers. I have not used many alternative PDF viewers, but the ones that I have used are no where near as rich in functionality as Adobe Acrobat. If you want to use the full functionality that PDF offers, you are going to wind up with Adobe Acrobat.

Just because other software vendors and companies that have produced electronic reading devices do not capitalize on this functionality does not mean it does not exist or that the file format is inferior.

Because our experience is that once an eBook is in PDF, it's extremely time consuming to change it to something else.

Oh, now you are talking about hacking the files! Something the average reader probably isn't even concerned with doing. Again, I state, "if Adobe wants to lock down the file to protect their intellectual property, that's certainly up to them."

Yup. It is an electronic version of a paper book. As an eBook format it fails in every way.

Failed in what ways? Have you even read a tagged PDF file on a handheld? How can you make such a global statement as this?

And I actually created PDFs to be used on my eBook readers and compared how well they worked compared to other formats.

I have formatted PDF files to make them work on the limited PDF reader that is on on my Cybook. That is not the same thing as creating a tagged PDF file that will work on this reader. The Cybook reader is deficient in regards to reading PDF files, not the file.

Experience trumps reading articles.

That won't ever happen. You can go read the articles about DRM to figure that out.

I have no idea what you are referring to here, but I think you are attempting to condescend to me, and so I terminate the conversation here.

That is a point. :yes: But I don't see that it really had any bearing on DRM in that specific case. She was pointing out that she found the features of PDF to be good for what she wanted to do, which was accommodating several screen sizes, not locking it down. :wink:

To me, "selling" an eBook in a non-transformable format is almost as bad a putting DRM on it. Almost all the same restrictions are there.

So I'm firmly on the side of PDF. Maybe it's not the smallest file... and maybe too many people give it a bad rap by not tagging their documents, and making 3rd party software that doesn't support one of the best features in PDFs... but it's still a viable, healthy format perfectly suitable for e-books, maybe even better than some other formats out there now.

No, not the smallest - the largest - especially for tagged PDFs.

But I just tried out the tagged PDF I created and, voila!, it does resize and reflow nicely in xpdf. Wow! It works exactly the same as the Mobipocket version - at 6 times the size.

To me, "selling" an eBook in a non-transformable format is almost as bad a putting DRM on it. Almost all the same restrictions are there.I see you're point, but I find it less compelling than you seem to.

PDF isn't going away totally any time soon, it's too widely used, so it's about as permanent as you can get for these things. An unlocked PDF lets me move it around and use it as I please, so I can keep it regardless of what my hardware does.

About the only thing I can't do with it is easily pull the contents out. Yes, that's not a good thing, but it's largely the same for most widely used formats out there, so it's not like it's uniquely malicious or anything.

If a "publishers" criteria is to reach as many people as they can, without requiring those folks to jump through lots of hoops and to make their "book" as portable as possible, it's hard to blame them for looking at unsecured PDF. You really have to dig into things to find the drawbacks, and that sort of minutia isn't the sort of thing "publishers" tend to be good at.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that PDF isn't the best format for anything except its designed purpose (that being preservation of document formatting/layout and contents across platforms), but I just cannot agree with you that choosing it can only be interpreted as a sign that the "publisher" is specifically and expressly out to screw over his customers. :unafraid:

To state something as fact, as you have attempted to do here, needs more testing, and more information about the variables tested.

Hmmm... So, doing a test, publishing the method and results means "needs more testing" especially when other people see similar results?

If you wish to keep testing, that's fine. But as far as I am concerned, it's a fact that PDF is a bloated format.

But the fact remains that PDF is a everywhere and many times, it is the only electronic format that one can get books in.

Officially. There are many unofficial sources.

Our discussion may be about PDF but how can one talk about PDF files without talking about software?

Because PDF does not equal Acrobat and many eBooks are not read on devices supported by Adobe.

Just because other software vendors and companies that have produced electronic reading devices do not capitalize on this functionality does not mean it does not exist or that the file format is inferior.

Back to my statement about a feature that no one knows exists doesn't exist.

Oh, now you are talking about hacking the files! Something the average reader probably isn't even concerned with doing. Again, I state, "if Adobe wants to lock down the file to protect their intellectual property, that's certainly up to them."

So you are asserting that when I create an eBook in PDF that it becomes Adobe's "intellectual property". Interesting view.

Failed in what ways? Have you even read a tagged PDF file on a handheld? How can you make such a global statement as this?

No. Because none of the PDFs that I had were tagged and were unreadable on my PDA. Even if it was tagged, 2.4MB is far too bloated a file to put on my PDA when I can put a 300K file on instead and get exactly the same functionality.

No, not the smallest - the largest - especially for tagged PDFs.

But I just tried out the tagged PDF I created and, voila!, it does resize and reflow nicely in xpdf. Wow! It works exactly the same as the Mobipocket version - at 6 times the size.

To be blunt... so what?

People load and play entire multi-gig movies onto PDAs today. Processors are faster and meaner than they were just a few years ago. Today's SW and HW can handle larger files. Who's sweating about the size of a PDF file, really?

By that logic, the only "viable" e-book format is the single format that generates the smallest files... all others suck eggs. I just don't accept that as a good reason to beat on PDFs.

To be blunt... so what?


Have you been reading the thread about people wanting all their content on their device? If I can use a format that allows me to put 6 times as much content in the same space... yea, I'm choosing the more compact format.

BOb

I've got a whole list of reasons I prefer other formats over PDF long before I get anywhere near file size. :grin:

People load and play entire multi-gig movies onto PDAs today. Processors are faster and meaner than they were just a few years ago. Today's SW and HW can handle larger files. Who's sweating about the size of a PDF file, really?

What PDAs are you using? No PDA that I've seen can handle multi-gig movies.

If you are talking about the media devices that are out there, yes. They can handle large files - and are very poor for eBook reading and their PDF readers are even worse than the current crop of eBook devices. Oh, and did I mention that with all that extra hardware their battery life is about 3 hours?

On memory cards, perhaps?

On memory cards, perhaps?

Exactly. Put your files on a memory card, and you can play them on most PDAs. I do this now, with books and movies (my new iPaq 110 handles movies worlds better than my Toshiba e330 did).

Sure, I realize people would like to carry all their files on one device... heck, so would I! (But I'll point out, we're not in that thread... ;)) If you don't have the option of carrying memory cards with you, smaller files are clearly the way to go, forget the PDFs (and leave the movies at home, too).

But if your device includes a case that can carry even a few SD cards, for instance, you're talking about being able to take gigs of files with you. My PDA case carries a 2GB and 4GB card, so I have 6GB+ of storage space while on the move. That'll hold most of the docs on my PC's hard drive! And in that case, a 2MB PDF file is no worry.

Exactly. Put your files on a memory card, and you can play them on most PDAs. I do this now, with books and movies (my new iPaq 110 handles movies worlds better than my Toshiba e330 did).


it really handles movies coded with such high bit rate that the size of one movie is multi-gig?

Exactly. Put your files on a memory card, and you can play them on most PDAs. I do this now, with books and movies (my new iPaq 110 handles movies worlds better than my Toshiba e330 did).

Sure, I realize people would like to carry all their files on one device... heck, so would I! (But I'll point out, we're not in that thread... ;)) If you don't have the option of carrying memory cards with you, smaller files are clearly the way to go, forget the PDFs (and leave the movies at home, too).

But if your device includes a case that can carry even a few SD cards, for instance, you're talking about being able to take gigs of files with you. My PDA case carries a 2GB and 4GB card, so I have 6GB+ of storage space while on the move. That'll hold most of the docs on my PC's hard drive! And in that case, a 2MB PDF file is no worry.


Between my 4GB SD card and my 8 GB CF card, I have 12 GB of storage card memory always installed in my pocket pc. And that's old technology. The newest pocket pcs can accommodate SDHC cards - some of these cards can get as large as 32 GB....storage space and file size is just not such a big issue these days.

Oh, and I do watch movies on my Pocket PC too (but that's a different topic altogether).

No, not the smallest - the largest - especially for tagged PDFs.

But I just tried out the tagged PDF I created and, voila!, it does resize and reflow nicely in xpdf. Wow! It works exactly the same as the Mobipocket version - at 6 times the size.

Are you still complaining about the size due to a crappy conversion tool you use to make tagged files. Tagged files are only slightly larger than untagged files if you use the correct tool to make them. If it not the fault of PDF that you are using a crappy tool.

Dale

Between my 4GB SD card and my 8 GB CF card, I have 12 GB of storage card memory always installed in my pocket pc. And that's old technology. The newest pocket pcs can accommodate SDHC cards - some of these cards can get as large as 32 GB....storage space and file size is just not such a big issue these days.

You forget to mention that these devices also have the battery life of a normal laptop - which makes them poor devices for reading eBooks.

Are you still complaining about the size due to a crappy conversion tool you use to make tagged files. Tagged files are only slightly larger than untagged files if you use the correct tool to make them. If it not the fault of PDF that you are using a crappy tool.

What tool do you suggest I use, then?

What tool do you suggest I use, then?

Adobe Acrobat, Framemaker, or ActiveSync. those are the best ones. The last one is free but you need a PPC to sync to and Windows XP or earlier. those are the only ones I have tested.

Dale

You can probably also use InDesign to create tagged PDFs.

My iPaq 110 can handle SDHCs. I've converted a TV episode or two to WMF, and they play sweet!

You forget to mention that these devices also have the battery life of a normal laptop - which makes them poor devices for reading eBooks.

My PDA lasts for over 5 hours' continuous use... reading.

Adobe Acrobat, Framemaker, or ActiveSync. those are the best ones. The last one is free but you need a PPC to sync to and Windows XP or earlier. those are the only ones I have tested.

Adobe Acrobat - $450
Framemaker - $900
Plus $150 for the Microsoft license.

Sorry, but those tools are extremely poor value. Try again.

ActiveSync - useful only if you use useless WinCE devices. Again, poor value.

You can probably also use InDesign to create tagged PDFs.

At $700 it's just as poor a value as the other tools.

My PDA lasts for over 5 hours' continuous use... reading.

Mine lasts at least 12 hours. Normal use requires a recharge only every 2-3 days. 5 hours for an eBook reader is unacceptable.

Adobe Acrobat - $450
Framemaker - $900
Plus $150 for the Microsoft license.

Sorry, but those tools are extremely poor value. Try again.

ActiveSync - useful only if you use useless WinCE devices. Again, poor value.

I don't think you looked very hard:

http://www.baselinesoftware.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=10&gclid=COay1ry545ICFQPJsgodXljS4g

I haven't timed it, but I can read a book all day on my Pocket PC and still have battery left over at the end of the day. However, we are not debating the suitability of a Pocket PC as a reading device. I think we all prefer to read our books on the electronic readers we've purchased (for me the Cybook), but since I can't read my PDF books on the Cybook, I am happy I can read them on my Pocket PC.

I don't think you looked very hard:

$130 for the software, plus $150 for the Microsoft license.

Still a poor deal over OpenOffice.org which is free.

I think we all prefer to read our books on the electronic readers we've purchased (for me the Cybook), but since I can't read my PDF books on the Cybook, I am happy I can read them on my Pocket PC.

PDFs display just fine on the Cybook. I have several on there right now and they display just fine.

But this little difference between my experience and yours demonstrates the problems with PDF. PDFs simply do not live up to their promise of displaying nicely on every device.

ON the contrary quite a few on this site are happy with a PPC for reading their ebooks I am one ..so is Steve Jordan.



I don't think you looked very hard:

http://www.baselinesoftware.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=10&gclid=COay1ry545ICFQPJsgodXljS4g

I haven't timed it, but I can read a book all day on my Pocket PC and still have battery left over at the end of the day. However, we are not debating the suitability of a Pocket PC as a reading device. I think we all prefer to read our books on the electronic readers we've purchased (for me the Cybook), but since I can't read my PDF books on the Cybook, I am happy I can read them on my Pocket PC.

@rlauzon, you can pick at these prices all day long, but if the software creates proper tagged PDFs, they are doing their job. If your cheaper software doesn't create proper tagged PDFs, it is not doing a good job. That's not the fault of the format, that's the fault of your cheaper software.

Why don't you just say that using PDFs properly is too expensive for your tastes, instead of calling PDFs the format from Hell, and leave it at that? (I can readily understand that, as I wouldn't mind using InDesign for PDF creation, but the overall cost--I'd have to update my PC to run it--has kept me clear of it, too.)

Also, since my time negates reading for more than 5 hours at a time, there's absolutely nothing wrong with my being able to read for 5 hours on a PDA.

Why don't you just say you sit around reading for 20-30 hours straight, away from any conceivable source of power, making a PDA unacceptable for you, and leave it at that?

These are not good enough reasons to attack PDFs. They just amount to your personal preference against PDF (and, I suspect, Adobe).

@rlauzon, you can pick at these prices all day long, but if the software creates proper tagged PDFs, they are doing their job. If your cheaper software doesn't create proper tagged PDFs, it is not doing a good job. That's not the fault of the format, that's the fault of your cheaper software.


If useful things are expensive to do then it is mostly the fault of the format. Yes, there are things that always are hard to do but they are rare. If you need expensive tools to handle a format it nearly always is because the format is not well designed (or from the point of the people selling expensive tools it is well designed).

If useful things are expensive to do then it is mostly the fault of the format. Yes, there are things that always are hard to do but they are rare. If you need expensive tools to handle a format it nearly always is because the format is not well designed (or from the point of the people selling expensive tools it is well designed).

Expense in the marketplace has nothing to do with how well a format is designed. That's a business issue, not a "format fault." It has no bearing on the quality of the format, or its usefulness as an e-book format.

Is there any software that can convert a text based PDF so it is perfect in that no run on words, no paragraph splits, no joined paragraphs, no issues with fi and fl, no constant headers/footers to have to remove and anything else that normally can go wrong with a PDF conversion? Also the conversion has to keep all the styles as well.

Does such software exist? if not, then using PDF thinking that since it's unprotected it will be easy to convert then would be poor thinking since it's would always have the risk of a conversion that may contain mistakes due to the conversion process.

Does such software exist? if not, then using PDF thinking that since it's unprotected it will be easy to convert then would be poor thinking since it's would always have the risk of a conversion that may contain mistakes due to the conversion process.

Maybe... but PDF isn't designed to be converted. It's just designed to be read. Lack of easy hacking opportunities is not a good reason to criticize the format.

If you want something you can convert, get an RTF file.

$130 for the software, plus $150 for the Microsoft license.

Still a poor deal over OpenOffice.org which is free.



What is the $150 license for? I have never paid for a special license.

Dale

Expense in the marketplace has nothing to do with how well a format is designed. That's a business issue, not a "format fault." It has no bearing on the quality of the format, or its usefulness as an e-book format.

A well designed format like XML does not lead to expensive tool like for example SGML that is not well designed for the kind of tasks that XML is used for.

If the format is hard to implement or hard to understand and hard to validate tools for then tools will be expensive.

A well designed format like XML does not lead to expensive tool like for example SGML that is not well designed for the kind of tasks that XML is used for.

If the format is hard to implement or hard to understand and hard to validate tools for then tools will be expensive.

More likely a bunch of cheap tools done poorly. Even simple formats can have expensive tools so I don't think that is the reason. Openoffice certainly did a poor job of adding tags if adding tags doubled the size. I suspect they don't really understand the issue. Someone should write a bug against openoffice and get it fixed. This is a serious bug IMHO. Personally I don't use Openoffice.

Dale

More likely a bunch of cheap tools done poorly.

Which tools are you referring to?

What is the $150 license for? I have never paid for a special license.

I don't use Microsoft products. Any software that requires Windows will also require me to purchase a copy of Windows in order to run it.

Maybe... but PDF isn't designed to be converted. It's just designed to be read. Lack of easy hacking opportunities is not a good reason to criticize the format.

If you want something you can convert, get an RTF file.
But a lot of free eBooks on the net are PDF and we want to read them on our portable devices. The PDF are made for letter sized pages. So we want to convert them to a proper format. But they don't convert without errors because the idiots who think PDF is a good eBook format don't give a shit about the people who will actually want to read the eBook.

I don't use Microsoft products. Any software that requires Windows will also require me to purchase a copy of Windows in order to run it.
That wasn't a problem for me. I paid $7 for an original OEM XP Pro CD with key.

jswolf, the best software I'm aware of for converting a .pdf into an editable text file w/ formatting and quite good paragraph recognition is Marcel Weiher's TextLighting.app (although originally written for Mac OS X, I believe there's a version for Linux and w/ the state of GNUstep, it could probably be made available for Windows. Inexpensive shareware, ob. discl. I was a beta tester).

As regards complaints about .pdf tool implementations, well, the specification is freely downloadable, so anyone who wants to create a better tool for it certainly could.

William

I don't use Microsoft products. Any software that requires Windows will also require me to purchase a copy of Windows in order to run it.

So, most likely you run Mac or Linux. There is a Mac version of Office. If you are on Linux you can by CrossOver Linux for $40.

But, perhaps someone that has one of the tools can compare the size of a non-tagged and tagged PDF for us rather than telling you how bad the tools you are using are.

BOb

But, perhaps someone that has one of the tools can compare the size of a non-tagged and tagged PDF for us rather than telling you how bad the tools you are using are.

BOb

I already did that with one file I tested! See the last paragraph in reply #28.

But a lot of free eBooks on the net are PDF and we want to read them on our portable devices. The PDF are made for letter sized pages. So we want to convert them to a proper format. But they don't convert without errors because the idiots who think PDF is a good eBook format don't give a shit about the people who will actually want to read the eBook.

Again, that's not a fault of the format, that's the fault of the people who create documents that aren't formatted properly. You want to use a piece of software, it's up to you to learn how to use it properly. We, as e-book readers, must tell producers when they are not properly creating their formats, advise them to do the job properly, or lose our business. Producers must learn how to do it properly, or not do it at all.

I don't use Microsoft products. Any software that requires Windows will also require me to purchase a copy of Windows in order to run it.

Well, if that's the price you have to pay for a properly formatted document...

Look, you don't want to buy Windows, and that's more than understandable (I don't think too many people here would argue that point). If I ever decide to go with InDesign (mainly for ePub generation), I'll have to upgrade Windows, whether I like it or not. But for the purposes of this discussion, the tools are there, if you decide to use them.

Again, that's not a fault of the format, that's the fault of the people who create documents that aren't formatted properly. You want to use a piece of software, it's up to you to learn how to use it properly. We, as e-book readers, must tell producers when they are not properly creating their formats, advise them to do the job properly, or lose our business. Producers must learn how to do it properly, or not do it at all.
But, the problem is that too many people purchase PDF format eBooks and that sends the message that PDF is a good format for eBooks. So what happens? We get more PDF when we need less. Well we did let Tor know that PDF was not what we wanted and they did listen and now we have HTML available for doing the eBook conversions from. But most won't listen.

It seems that those who believe the PDF format is not a viable ebook format hold fast to their beliefs because:

1) Many of the PDF books they've experienced in the past were not generated into a proper eBook format

2) They don't have the tools to capitalize on the features that make the PDF format a viable ebook format

3) They don't know how or are unable to hack existing PDF files to make them work with their electronic reader devices

No matter that the PDF format can reflow to accommodate just about every screen size. Because hardware developers and eBook publishers don't know about or use these features, let's just reject the format, call it junk and be done with it.

I don't think anyone here is stating that the PDF format is the BEST format to use for eBooks, but so far I have not seen any alternate view here that rules it out as a viable eBook format

I don't think anyone here is stating that the PDF format is the BEST format to use for eBooks, but so far I have not seen any alternate view here that rules it out as a viable eBook format

Seconded.

We need to seperate types of eBooks then we can say where PDF works and where PDF fails...

PDF fails for books that are mostly text based. Like say the latest Star Trek book for example.

Now where PDF is good is for things like text books or things you may want to print in a complex format.

And yes, the PDF implementation on most eink readers is awful. The iLiad has the best PDF viewer for it of any of the eink based readers.

I don't think anyone here is stating that the PDF format is the BEST format to use for eBooks, but so far I have not seen any alternate view here that rules it out as a viable eBook format

Seconded.

I'd agree with that statement too, with the addition that I don't particularly want to use PDF myself. :shrug:

I don't use Microsoft products. Any software that requires Windows will also require me to purchase a copy of Windows in order to run it.

Ah, I understand. I missed that point, so even if the product is free it costs too much for you. That clears up a lot about your opinion of PDF.

Dale

It seems that those who believe the PDF format is not a viable ebook format hold fast to their beliefs because:

1) Many of the PDF books they've experienced in the past were not generated into a proper eBook format

2) They don't have the tools to capitalize on the features that make the PDF format a viable ebook format

3) They don't know how or are unable to hack existing PDF files to make them work with their electronic reader devices


As the OP of this thread I would say that 1 and 2 are true. 3 is non-sequiter since the average consumer doesn't want to or know how to "hack" a PDF... they just want to load the thing on their ebook reader (whatever that is) and go.

So if:

1. PDF files that are meant to be "eBooks" rather than a way to send a document from one person to another are all "tagged".

2. eBook readers are able to display PDF files allowing for the text to flow propertly and font size to be changed.

Then I would say that PDF could be considered an eBook format.

However I would think anyone in this thread on any side would have to admit that for a common text only fiction book there is alot of unneeded markup in a PDF file. Basic .txt or .html with a few font tags and anchor tags for toc is all that is needed.

BOb - Didn't expect anywhere near the hail storm in this thread that has occured.

Which tools are you referring to?

There are hundreds of PDF readers, PDF creators, and PDF converters on the market. Many are free and lots are cheap. They all claim to work but often they do a poor job in the real world.

The creators don't support tags, many only produce images instead of real text, and some don't even support TOC or metadata. Most don't linearize the data or compress it properly.

The converters often convert to images or text with all formatting lost. Some mishandle images or can't handle them at all.

I agree that PDF is complicated and made more complicated by all the various purposes it is trying to accomplish. For example there is a archive specification for PDF that requires embedding all fonts in the file and no compression. This improves its quality as an archive for future use years from now but certainly is not optimum for eBook use. PDF is also a page layout system and an eDocument system, a print substitute and many, many other applications.

Dale

As I have said, I am not a fan of PDF for ebooks, but I did consider it at one point when I wanted some DRMed books, but I wanted them compatible with my Macbook (Adobe and eReader are the only DRM formats with mac readers). I threw Adobe out the window when I asked Fictionwise if their PDF books were tagged for reflow. The customer service rep informed me that PDF cannot reflow. I pointed them him to several articles correcting his information (which I am certain he did not read), and went on to download my eReader files.

Just out of curiosity, given the ongoing discussion, I tried downloading some of my unprotected Fictionwise purchases in PDF. I tried three different files, from three different publishers, and lo and behold, reflow works on each (I am using Acrobat 7, btw). Now, that is not to say it would be the same with protected PDF files, and with what I have since learned of Adobe DRM issues, I will happily stick with eReader when I can, but it does open up some extra options.

Jack

Just out of curiosity, given the ongoing discussion, I tried downloading some of my unprotected Fictionwise purchases in PDF. I tried three different files, from three different publishers, and lo and behold, reflow works on each (I am using Acrobat 7, btw).

Ok, of all the PDF's I have on my work PC, mostly tech books or software documentation only one was tagged. How do you get it to flow in Reader vs 7? When I shrink the size of the window I just get scroll bars?

BOb

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it on the view menu. Apparently you can relow untagged docs too, they just don't work as fast and may not look as good.

There are hundreds of PDF readers, PDF creators, and PDF converters on the market. Many are free and lots are cheap. They all claim to work but often they do a poor job in the real world.

The creators don't support tags, many only produce images instead of real text, and some don't even support TOC or metadata. Most don't linearize the data or compress it properly.

The converters often convert to images or text with all formatting lost. Some mishandle images or can't handle them at all.

I agree that PDF is complicated and made more complicated by all the various purposes it is trying to accomplish. For example there is a archive specification for PDF that requires embedding all fonts in the file and no compression. This improves its quality as an archive for future use years from now but certainly is not optimum for eBook use. PDF is also a page layout system and an eDocument system, a print substitute and many, many other applications.


And my point was that the reason for this is the format. I tried to find some tool for Linux to remove the margins of a pdf document but could not easily find any tool that worked correctly. And I think this is a rather easy operation that the format should support and it should be easy to write a tool the does this.

As I have said, I am not a fan of PDF for ebooks, but I did consider it at one point when I wanted some DRMed books, but I wanted them compatible with my Macbook (Adobe and eReader are the only DRM formats with mac readers). I threw Adobe out the window when I asked Fictionwise if their PDF books were tagged for reflow. The customer service rep informed me that PDF cannot reflow. I pointed them him to several articles correcting his information (which I am certain he did not read), and went on to download my eReader files.

Just out of curiosity, given the ongoing discussion, I tried downloading some of my unprotected Fictionwise purchases in PDF. I tried three different files, from three different publishers, and lo and behold, reflow works on each (I am using Acrobat 7, btw). Now, that is not to say it would be the same with protected PDF files, and with what I have since learned of Adobe DRM issues, I will happily stick with eReader when I can, but it does open up some extra options.

Jack

If you are able to download and view a sample of the book (many eBook sellers provide samples nowadays), you can check the properties of the book to see if it is accessible. To do this, all you need to do is open up the demo book in Adobe Reader, select File > Properties and then you'll see "Tagged PDF:" with a Yes or No after it.

1) Many of the PDF books they've experienced in the past were not generated into a proper eBook format

Correct. But I will add to your statement that many of the PDFs still are not created in the correct format. It makes no difference if PDF can work if the PDF you want to read doesn't work.

2) They don't have the tools to capitalize on the features that make the PDF format a viable ebook format

Tagged PDFs will be viable only when a free tool exists that creates tagged PDFs that aren't 8 times larger than the competing formats.

Remember, you still have not told us what features PDF has over competing formats.

3) They don't know how or are unable to hack existing PDF files to make them work with their electronic reader devices

Since the purpose of PDF was to create a non-changable document, this will always be a problem.

No matter that the PDF format can reflow to accommodate just about every screen size.

At the cost of processor speed and storage space.

Because hardware developers and eBook publishers don't know about or use these features, let's just reject the format, call it junk and be done with it.

Since it offers absolutely no benefits over smaller, more open formats, why deal with PDF's problems?

I don't think anyone here is stating that the PDF format is the BEST format to use for eBooks, but so far I have not seen any alternate view here that rules it out as a viable eBook format

Hmmm.... Let's see...

1) It's horribly bloated compared to other formats.
2) It requires proprietary tools (that only run on proprietary operating systems) to create properly.
3) It's immutable.
4) It offers no benefits over lighter competing formats.

PDF however, allows one to have nice typography with control that no other ebook format allows as-of-yet....

William

We need to seperate types of eBooks then we can say where PDF works and where PDF fails...

PDF fails for books that are mostly text based. Like say the latest Star Trek book for example.

Disagree. A tagged PDF is larger than other formats, but still perfectly suitable for text-based content.

PDF however, allows one to have nice typography with control that no other ebook format allows as-of-yet....

William

Funny enough, that is one of the things I dislike about PDF. As a reader, I prefer to be able to define the font(s) and color scheme, and my choices don't always match the taste of the author/designer.

I do like the generic font family design that HTML had (I think it is considered deprecated now). The user could define a default font, a monospace one, one with a script style, and one standout (fantasy, I think it was called). That way the author could still have some control over the presentation, but not at the expense of my eyes. ;)

Jack

And my point was that the reason for this is the format. I tried to find some tool for Linux to remove the margins of a pdf document but could not easily find any tool that worked correctly. And I think this is a rather easy operation that the format should support and it should be easy to write a tool the does this.

I was agreeing with your point but not your reason for the point. It is not that there is expensive software but that the cheap software doesn't work.

Dale

Funny enough, that is one of the things I dislike about PDF. As a reader, I prefer to be able to define the font(s) and color scheme, and my choices don't always match the taste of the author/designer.

I do like the generic font family design that HTML had (I think it is considered deprecated now). The user could define a default font, a monospace one, one with a script style, and one standout (fantasy, I think it was called). That way the author could still have some control over the presentation, but not at the expense of my eyes. ;)

Jack

I always thought HTML went downhill after 3.2. CSS and all the other crap removes the users control of the presentation. In a Browser I should have control (some pages I view I can't even read), however for an eBook I can see some advantages to CSS et. al.

Dale

I always thought HTML went downhill after 3.2. CSS and all the other crap removes the users control of the presentation. In a Browser I should have control (some pages I view I can't even read), however for an eBook I can see some advantages to CSS et. al.

Dale

How does css remove your control of presentation?

I always thought HTML went downhill after 3.2. CSS and all the other crap removes the users control of the presentation.

HTML layout can do that, but it doesn't have to. If the author specifies specific sizes and fonts and absolute positions then you don't have much control over it. However, if it is written with relative positions, font suggestions, designs it to be floable then you have much more control as the end user. This doesn't have to do with the newer standards so much as how people are using them.

That said, there are add-ins for browers that allow you to substitue your own styles/stylesheets for the ones pulled down from the web site which gives you ultimate control over the display of the content.

BOb

HTML layout can do that, but it doesn't have to. If the author specifies specific sizes and fonts and absolute positions then you don't have much control over it. However, if it is written with relative positions, font suggestions, designs it to be floable then you have much more control as the end user. This doesn't have to do with the newer standards so much as how people are using them.
BOb

That's true.

I was wondering if this is what Dale is talking about or something else I'm unaware of.

1) It's horribly bloated compared to other formats.
2) It requires proprietary tools (that only run on proprietary operating systems) to create properly.
3) It's immutable.
4) It offers no benefits over lighter competing formats.

None of which means PDF is not a viable e-book format. Just not the best for your personal use.

We need to seperate types of eBooks then we can say where PDF works and where PDF fails...

PDF fails for books that are mostly text based. Like say the latest Star Trek book for example.

Now where PDF is good is for things like text books or things you may want to print in a complex format.

And yes, the PDF implementation on most eink readers is awful. The iLiad has the best PDF viewer for it of any of the eink based readers.

Heh, I'm glad I read past your previous post where you called us PDF publishers "idiots".

I heartily agree with you here. If layout matters (technical stuff, maths) PDF is second to none. For plain text, I probably wouldn't go with PDF.

I will check out tagging PDFs (this thread is the first time I heard about it), and whether pdfLaTeX can generate this. Until then, I simply provide a pdf specifically laid out for small (screen) pages.

I compare it to a MIDI file versus a CD of a live performance. CDs are awful if you intend to extract the score music from them, but I'd be hesitant to call CDs a "stupid" format for music publication.

In this discussion of PDF as an eBook format, we lost sight of what PDF is good for and what it's not good for and yes, for things like text books with complex layout, it's really good. But for ordinary text eBooks, it's dreadful.

In this discussion of PDF as an eBook format, we lost sight of what PDF is good for and what it's not good for and yes, for things like text books with complex layout, it's really good. But for ordinary text eBooks, it's dreadful.

I don't see how PDF is dreadful for ordinary text eBooks. What are you basing this on?

He meant "plain" text, I think. :shrug:

I don't see how PDF is dreadful for ordinary text eBooks. What are you basing this on?
I'm basing this ont he fact that if the formatting does not need to be complex, then we are stuck with a fixed format and a fixed font size. Part of the idea of a reader is th ability to change the font size and also letter sized PDF do not look good on a 6" screen without reformatting of the PDF. Can you honestly say that you would enjoy more reading a letter sized PDF (of non-complex formatting) on your Gen3 then you would had it been in Mobipocket format?

I'm basing this ont he fact that if the formatting does not need to be complex, then we are stuck with a fixed format and a fixed font size. Part of the idea of a reader is th ability to change the font size and also letter sized PDF do not look good on a 6" screen without reformatting of the PDF. Can you honestly say that you would enjoy more reading a letter sized PDF (of non-complex formatting) on your Gen3 then you would had it been in Mobipocket format?

You are referring to the limitations of existing ebook readers that do not reflow a PDF file to fit a different sized screen and do not allow one to make the font larger or smaller. This is not the experience I have when reading on a Pocket PC.

Readers who are not interested or knowledgeable of the ins and outs of what comprises an electronic book, care about whether or not they can read a book comfortably. On my Cybook, I cannot read a PDF eBook comfortably because the Cybook does not provide the options I need to do that. On the Cybook PDF books are displayed as simple print images of the original paper books. But the same books that are tagged and reflowed on my Pocket PC are true electronic documents that display great on the smaller screen. This is a limitation with the Cybook, not with the format and does not make the PDF format dreadful as an eBook.

ON my Acer N311 PDF does NOT read well, despite trying to use software designed specifically for reading PDF on a PPC. Have to say PDF is a a bad format for ereaders but quite good for a desktop or notebook.



You are referring to the limitations of existing ebook readers that do not reflow a PDF file to fit a different sized screen and do not allow one to make the font larger or smaller. This is not the experience I have when reading on a Pocket PC.

Readers who are not interested or knowledgeable of the ins and outs of what comprises an electronic book, care about whether or not they can read a book comfortably. On my Cybook, I cannot read a PDF eBook comfortably because the Cybook does not provide the options I need to do that. On the Cybook PDF books are displayed as simple print images of the original paper books. But the same books that are tagged and reflowed on my Pocket PC are true electronic documents that display great on the smaller screen. This is a limitation with the Cybook, not with the format and does not make the PDF format dreadful as an eBook.

ON my Acer N311 PDF does NOT read well, despite trying to use software designed specifically for reading PDF on a PPC. Have to say PDF is a a bad format for ereaders but quite good for a desktop or notebook.

What software are you using? Adobe Reader for Pocket PC 2.0? Could you describe what you mean by "NOT read well?" [I have Adobe Reader for Pocket PC 2.0 running on 4 different pocket pcs and it works great].

I used a progamme called LittleFox. Others have said it is quite good. I can read with it but the zoom feature is not very adaptable. Anyways I format all of my PDF files with Mobipocket Creator. Hence, I do not need a PDF reader. However, I will try to install Adobe 2.0 and see how well it works. Thanx for the info. :thanks:


What software are you using? Adobe Reader for Pocket PC 2.0? Could you describe what you mean by "NOT read well?" [I have Adobe Reader for Pocket PC 2.0 running on 4 different pocket pcs and it works great].

How does css remove your control of presentation?

today there are all sorts of ways to remove control from the reader. CSS is one of those. Such things as making the screen wider than my current window so I have to scroll to see things. Picking hardcoded fonts, sizes, and hundreds of other very specific things. Even forcing colors to be something I can't even see due to contrast issues. Java and Javascript things can dominate a screen display. And don't get me started on some of the dynamic realplayer junk. Then there is forcing music on me that I don't care to hear. In 3.2 you have control over everything very easily. Now you have to be a hacker to just get control over your own screen display.

don't get me wrong, some of the screens are really slick and really well done but a lot of them are crap and take 10 times as long to load. Active X, et. al. CSS is the tip but the whole philosophy of web browsing has changed from information display to fancy display but who cares about the information so long as it looks pretty.

Dale

today there are all sorts of ways to remove control from the reader. CSS is one of those. Such things as making the screen wider than my current window so I have to scroll to see things. Picking hardcoded fonts, sizes, and hundreds of other very specific things. Even forcing colors to be something I can't even see due to contrast issues. Java and Javascript things can dominate a screen display. And don't get me started on some of the dynamic realplayer junk. Then there is forcing music on me that I don't care to hear. In 3.2 you have control over everything very easily. Now you have to be a hacker to just get control over your own screen display.

don't get me wrong, some of the screens are really slick and really well done but a lot of them are crap and take 10 times as long to load. Active X, et. al. CSS is the tip but the whole philosophy of web browsing has changed from information display to fancy display but who cares about the information so long as it looks pretty.

Dale

I agree almost completely with everything you said. It is incredible the terrible page and site design that is happening, even on big name sites which I'm sure they paid a fortune for. It's a pet peeve of mine (yea you can add it to the list).

But I must defend css. I like css. The problem is in the design decisions being made, the way people are using the tools available, it's not the fault of the css.

Thanks for the answer.

I agree almost completely with everything you said. It is incredible the terrible page and site design that is happening, even on big name sites which I'm sure they paid a fortune for. It's a pet peeve of mine (yea you can add it to the list).

But I must defend css. I like css. The problem is in the design decisions being made, the way people are using the tools available, it's not the fault of the css.

Thanks for the answer.

I use CSS myself when formatting books but not for web pages. I do not like the W3C committee deprecating all my nice formatting solutions in preference to having to do everything with a style statements or CSS files since it encourages taking over the display of what I see.

I don't have anything against CSS itself except it is very difficult to troubleshoot a formatting problem if you have multiple CSS files or tags that might be applied in a particular situation. I really wish I could tap on an error and have it tell me which CSS statement caused it to look like it does. I encounter these kinds of problems when I try and reformat other peoples eBooks for my own use.

Dale

I generally find it easier to completely rewrite a webpage from scratch than to try and figure out what someone else did to mess their page up. Seriously. Any little thing might cause great big problems. But I find it pretty easy when I am writing a page from scratch and I know what I have done to it.

I don't use css when formatting books. I want to leave the most possible up to the individual reader so I purposely do not format anything. I just make headers larger than regular text (but still with the ability for the reader to change the size), and a few other things in some situations. But mainly I'm trying to leave it to the end user to have the most control possible.

If it's plain text and the source is readily available, it's quite easy for a person to make a .pdf which will display quite nicely on a reader (or some other sort of ebook format) --- the problem only arises when someone for some reason has taken text, flowed it into a .pdf and failed to size / format it for the current, small-size, e-ink screens.

Given how new they are, and their limited numbers, this isn't that surprising. Give it time, it'll change.

For my part, I find the control a .pdf affords important for preventing typographic errors such as stacks which can't be controlled algorithmically.

William

If it's plain text and the source is readily available, it's quite easy for a person to make a .pdf which will display quite nicely on a reader (or some other sort of ebook format) --- the problem only arises when someone for some reason has taken text, flowed it into a .pdf and failed to size / format it for the current, small-size, e-ink screens.

That's essentially it.

What many people could use, IMHO, is an app that would essentially take a file (say, an RTF or HTML file, something fairly universal) and do the "hard work" of converting it to a PDF optimized for your particular device and screen size (really, just automating the process for the user). In fact, it's been my opinion that every maker of a reader, HW or SW, should include such an app to convert other file formats to their own wherever possible (in other words, DRM-permitting).

How easy all our lives would be!

Oh, look! Is that a pig flying overhead?...

PDFs are great if you want to print something. If you want to read it on a screen not so much. Even if the PDF is reflowable, the reader does not have control over the fonts, so if you want it on a portable device it needs to be formatted for both the screen size and the eyes of the person reading it. Different people need different size and style fonts-- this is particularly true as they age.

Some people swear by Arial, I prefer to swear at it.

The biggest advantage of reading something in a digital form is that it makes it easier to meet the needs of each individual reader rather than the "one-size-fits-all" model of paper. PDF is an expression of that model in digital format.

Yes it can be used as a digital reading format, but unless one has very specific formatting needs it's never a good choice unless it's specifically formatted for the device and the person reading it. At that point the question becomes why should I do something manually that the software does for all the other formats?f

You may be perfectly happy with a PDF that's been specifically optimized for your eyes and your screen, but what about me? What about people who may read on more than one device?

I just finished reading a science fiction magazine on my Palm TX. But I read part of it on my Nokia 6126. I need different font and page sizes for a 2.2" screen at 320x240 than for a 3.8" screen at 480x320. PDF makes adjusting that more difficult than it needs to be.

It meets certain needs, but as a general eBook format it causes more problems than it solves.

Even if the PDF is reflowable, the reader does not have control over the fonts, so if you want it on a portable device it needs to be formatted for both the screen size and the eyes of the person reading it...

You may be perfectly happy with a PDF that's been specifically optimized for your eyes and your screen, but what about me? What about people who may read on more than one device?

That's why I suggested an app that would take a file in another format and optimize it for you and your e-book reading app, whether it be Mobi, eReader, or Acrobat on your laptop.

PDFs are great if you want to print something. If you want to read it on a screen not so much. Even if the PDF is reflowable, the reader does not have control over the fonts, so if you want it on a portable device it needs to be formatted for both the screen size and the eyes of the person reading it. Different people need different size and style fonts-- this is particularly true as they age.

Some people swear by Arial, I prefer to swear at it.

The biggest advantage of reading something in a digital form is that it makes it easier to meet the needs of each individual reader rather than the "one-size-fits-all" model of paper. PDF is an expression of that model in digital format.

Yes it can be used as a digital reading format, but unless one has very specific formatting needs it's never a good choice unless it's specifically formatted for the device and the person reading it. At that point the question becomes why should I do something manually that the software does for all the other formats?f

You may be perfectly happy with a PDF that's been specifically optimized for your eyes and your screen, but what about me? What about people who may read on more than one device?

I just finished reading a science fiction magazine on my Palm TX. But I read part of it on my Nokia 6126. I need different font and page sizes for a 2.2" screen at 320x240 than for a 3.8" screen at 480x320. PDF makes adjusting that more difficult than it needs to be.

It meets certain needs, but as a general eBook format it causes more problems than it solves.

Zoom is for that very problem. A combination of zooming and reflow can provide you with the size text you want a still flow the document. As to the font type, most eBook Readers don't give you much control over that.

Dale

I will agree, PDF qualifies as a layout language (based on PostScript which was a page description language) and not as a markup language. But with all of the document markup languages available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_document_markup_languages), it seems kind of silly to keep trying to invent new ones. Especially since there are several on the list that already have free, high-quality, open-source tools available to convert their markup into a variety of output formats.

[My vote would've been for one of the TeX based derivatives since Knuth took into consideration hyphenation, justification, proper typography, math equations, as well as a host of other issues when originally designing TeX. But everyone is on the XML buzzword wagon nowadays ... ]

[edit] ... and I'll agree with Lemurion, from a design standpoint, people who still use Arial or Times (with the selection of free OpenType Unicode-compliant fonts available) definitely need to be sworn at :p

ePub hopefully will be the Standard for publishing Ebooks in the futures. Since it's basically XML, it will be very easy to make converters for the different Ebook-Formats you possibly need.

it's sadly too wide spread and restricting.I don't supose anyone knows a way to "turn of" the security setings?

Just don't turn them on when you're making a file.

If you're asking how to "turn them off" in someone else's file, then answering the question would be against forum policy (http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/Policy#Policy).

1-sending a private email on the matter wouldn't be?

Soliciting such a thing here would be.

Unless you're joking. You really should try out the emoticons, they make it much clearer when you're joking. :wink2:

im realy not joking,and I can't use emoticons.I need to PRINT them.

I'm not sure I follow: how do you mean you have to print them? :blink:

I'm not crazy about PDF... but I will use it when it's the only thing available (specifically for non-DRM titles). BooksOnBoard has a bunch of non-DRM eBooks (and yes, to answer the subject of this forum, I do think they're eBooks) that I've downloaded, and the reading experience is decent. I know there's a way to convert non-DRM pdf files to Mobi, but I haven't researched how to do it yet...

MobiCreator will do that, I believe. :nice:

Thanks! I'll get it.

NatCH-I need to PRINT the PDF .

NatCH-I need to PRINT the PDF .Ah, now I understand, I thought you were saying you can't use emoticons in your posts because you need to print them.

...except I don't understand why you can't use emoticons. :shrug:


Now I at least understand that you need to print the PDF in question.

I'm surprised, usually even the locked ones allow printing. :sad: You must have gotten hold of one from somebody really paranoid.

horrormasters.com