Quote:
Originally Posted by sabredog
As I said before, PDF is a perfect document format for display on a PC. But I believe it is not an ebook format, certainly not suitable for use in the current generation of ereaders which struggle to display them.
That is NOT a criticism.
|
Okay, I withdraw the word, though not my stance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenJackson
In your analogy, it should be perfectly proper to criticize the adoption of kerosene as a standard fuel because there are lots of people that drive cars that can't use it.
|
Actually, no: If a car is not designed to run on kerosene, it is unfair to criticize the car (or, for that matter, the kerosene) because you can't put kerosene into the car to run it. If a car is designed to run on kerosene, and it will not, you have a reason to criticize the car. If kerosene is intended to use as a replacement for gasoline in existing cars, and it does not work, you have a reason to criticize the kerosene.
In our case, we have kerosene (PDF), suitable to burn in some engines... but then new engines are built, designed to run on gasoline (ePub, Mobi, etc), and the kerosene doesn't work in the new engines. This is not the fault of the kerosene... in fact, it's not even the fault of the new engines, if they were not intended to run on kerosene. If anything, it's the fault of whoever decided that the new engines did not need to run on kerosene, and to heck with anyone who's still using kerosene, they're SOL.
In effect, those who have decided not to support common formats (like compliant PDFs) on their devices are intentionally dividing up the market, to its detriment.