EPub validates in Sigil but not in Apple Store & B&N

[ralphiedee]

and Barnes and Noble my client tells me he receives the following messages when trying to upload the epub

Did not pass epubcheck-1.1 validation. (the iBookstore and Barnes & Noble)
Contains unmanifested files. (the iBookstore and Barnes & Noble)
Contains XML namespace errors. (the iBookstore and Barnes & Noble)
Contains file permission errors. (the iBookstore and Barnes & Noble)
Contains invalid images. (the iBookstore and Barnes & Noble)
The table of contents contains one or more links without text. (the iBookstore and Barnes & Noble)
Contains invalid guide section XML. (Barnes & Noble)
Contains invalid creator XML. (Barnes & Noble)
Contains invalid publication date XML. (Barnes & Noble)
Contains invalid publisher XML. (Barnes & Noble)

I was wondering why the nook passes validation in Sigil but fails in The Apple Store and B&N Can someone tell me if ( other than opening accounts in the Apple Store and B& N to see for myself is there anyway to test the pubs or do I have to upload to accounts and see for myself.

Last is, what is causing these errors?

Anyone?

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by ralphiedee

I was wondering why the nook passes validation in Sigil but fails in The Apple Store and B&N

Sigil does not use epubcheck to validate epubs. You may want to use epubcheck or the IDPF online validator to validate your books.

Originally Posted by ralphiedee

Can someone tell me if ( other than opening accounts in the Apple Store and B& N to see for myself is there anyway to test the pubs or do I have to upload to accounts and see for myself.

Use epubcheck. If your epub validates with the current version (3.0b5-pre), download epubcheck 1.1 and validate your book with it.

Originally Posted by ralphiedee

Last is, what is causing these errors?

Most likely syntax errors in the publication files.

[exaltedwombat]

Do the makers of epubcheck object to Sigil using it? Is there some other reason for using a non-standard validator?

[Toxaris]

There are reasons. It checks for more errors and is more user friendly.

[exaltedwombat]

So it's a "Sigil is right, B & N are wrong" standoff? :-)

[theducks]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

So it's a "Sigil is right, B & N are wrong" standoff? :-)

In this case: 'Maybe'

Each tool has its know quirks
EPUB check Misses many errors (and can be vague on some it does find).

B&N is wrong relying on a Single tool to Automatically 'Reject' submissions.

IMHO if the tools don't agree (one passes, the other fails) A human should review the results (Usually take just a few minutes looking , just to say Yay or Nay )

[sjkramer]

Apparently, Apple also rejects images over 2 million pixels in size. But I don't know any validator that currently checks image or text file size.

[Toxaris]

The only validator that should check that is the one from apple, since they are the only ones with these restrictions.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by sjkramer

Apparently, Apple also rejects images over 2 million pixels in size. But I don't know any validator that currently checks image or text file size.

Yes, which is almost hysterically funny when you know that their new mandatory cover size has a minimum size of 1400px on the short side. Do THAT math. ;-)

It's not a Sigil right, B&N wrong thing; it's what version of ePUBcheck, as opposed to what version of ePUB, are you making, more to the point. At Apple, you can get rejected for things that have NOTHING to do with ePUBcheck (like the cover size). At Lulu, they use an ePUBcheck from 3 gens back. It's about the fact that despite the IDPF, there are NO standards to which everyone complies--not even close.

Hitch