MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Is a better e-book format always better?

Bob Russell · 05-18-2006, 05:32 PM

Of course a better e-book format is better, you say! Well, not so fast. Let me explain what I mean.

Consider the following spectrum (my apologies if the spacing doesn't come out nicely):

Text ....... HTML ........ Fancy Format
<------------------------------------------>

Clearly, HTML has some big advantages over plain text files. Hyperlinks, formatting and so forth are important improvements in content presentation. It's more flexible and competent.

We could plug in something for fancy format like Palm Doc, eReader, iSiloX, Plucker, Acrobat, LaTex, Microsoft Word or probably a hundred more formats. Each of them has advantages over simple text or HTML that make them more competent in presenting and storing (e.g. compressing) content. Pdf, for example, can represent a page much better than HTML, and is much more like the page of a book. In other words, each of these formats is "better", but it doesn't mean we prefer them.

More sophisticated formats are better in the sense of capability, but not necessarily better for us. Why not? Primarily, we are often concerned more with compatibility than capability. We want the format to be usable in any e-book reader, or editor. Just because it is powerful or flexible doesn't mean much if it's not "interoperable." It needs to be not only simple, but more importantly supported universally. So to update the diagram...

Text ....... HTML ........ Fancy Format
<------------------------------------------>
Simple/Interoperable........ Less Compatible

My point is simply to emphasize that there is great value in compatibility. Text and HTML are great because they are simple and interoperable with all kinds of software from e-book readers to browsers to word processors to format converters and so forth. Fancy formats give us things like support for one primary program, and maybe compression and DRM. So why haven't fancy formats caught on more? They are not naturally interoperable.

I am not familiar enough to speak to the value of proposed open formats. (I would love to see some simple overviews of that.) But I am pretty sure that other closed and complicated formats will have trouble dominating the e-book world. We need interoperability.

What surprises me is that we haven't seen existing standards applied to book and content presentation more. Or maybe I'm just not aware of it, I'm not sure. But why can't XML include content and presentation information. Or what about CSS? All of that can be compressed if necessary. Is there a reason it's not the basis of e-book formats? Simple is good!

05-18-2006, 05:32 PM	#1
Bob Russell Recovering Gadget Addict Posts: 5,381 Karma: 676161 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Device: iPad	Is a better e-book format always better? Of course a better e-book format is better, you say! Well, not so fast. Let me explain what I mean. Consider the following spectrum (my apologies if the spacing doesn't come out nicely): Text ....... HTML ........ Fancy Format <------------------------------------------> Clearly, HTML has some big advantages over plain text files. Hyperlinks, formatting and so forth are important improvements in content presentation. It's more flexible and competent. We could plug in something for fancy format like Palm Doc, eReader, iSiloX, Plucker, Acrobat, LaTex, Microsoft Word or probably a hundred more formats. Each of them has advantages over simple text or HTML that make them more competent in presenting and storing (e.g. compressing) content. Pdf, for example, can represent a page much better than HTML, and is much more like the page of a book. In other words, each of these formats is "better", but it doesn't mean we prefer them. More sophisticated formats are better in the sense of capability, but not necessarily better for us. Why not? Primarily, we are often concerned more with compatibility than capability. We want the format to be usable in any e-book reader, or editor. Just because it is powerful or flexible doesn't mean much if it's not "interoperable." It needs to be not only simple, but more importantly supported universally. So to update the diagram... Text ....... HTML ........ Fancy Format <------------------------------------------> Simple/Interoperable........ Less Compatible My point is simply to emphasize that there is great value in compatibility. Text and HTML are great because they are simple and interoperable with all kinds of software from e-book readers to browsers to word processors to format converters and so forth. Fancy formats give us things like support for one primary program, and maybe compression and DRM. So why haven't fancy formats caught on more? They are not naturally interoperable. I am not familiar enough to speak to the value of proposed open formats. (I would love to see some simple overviews of that.) But I am pretty sure that other closed and complicated formats will have trouble dominating the e-book world. We need interoperability. What surprises me is that we haven't seen existing standards applied to book and content presentation more. Or maybe I'm just not aware of it, I'm not sure. But why can't XML include content and presentation information. Or what about CSS? All of that can be compressed if necessary. Is there a reason it's not the basis of e-book formats? Simple is good!