Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The link you provide specifically states:
(Emphasis mine). Such books are not ePub files. I don't give a damn what some people may wrongly choose to call them. The whole point of ePub is that it is a published and ratified standard. Anything that doesn't conform to the standard cannot legitimately be called an ePub file. Standards conformance is not a "popularity context", but a simple technical matter. A file either conforms to the ePub standard, or it does not. These do not, and cannot legitimately be called ePub books.
|
And you should go read the spec before mouthing off about it. It specifically allows for developers to do nonstandard things to Epub files and still validate. This was an intentional part of the design. That is why I said that the Epub spec is a set of minimum requirements, not a prescriptive document.
Getting back to the original point:
So Apple's FL Epubs are indeed Epubs, which means the so-called Epub standard is fragmented by mutually incompatible content. That internal issue renders the related issue of Kindle incompatibility moot.
So long as Epub is internally incompatible Jon cannot kick Kindle around for being the same.
P.S. And Harry, did you really think you could win an argument on the facts against someone who writes about this stuff for a living?