View Single Post
Old 02-12-2011, 05:40 PM   #159
Nathanael
Groupie
Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Nathanael ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 185
Karma: 1110435
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shanghai, China
Device: Sibrary G5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
A publishing trade group can declare anything they want to be the standard. But that doesn't actually make it the standard.
You're trying to create an argument by conflating disparate definitions. So, we could argue about this for a month, each of us pretending the other is wrong. Or we could simply define our terms, since this is really a discussion about definitions.

You're talking de-facto, I'm talking industry. When I say "standard" I mean IEEE or ISO (or in this case IDPF). When you say "standard" you mean Microsoft-style. Neither of us is wrong. Both definitions are useful, and there's no reason they can't co-exist.

Now, if we're talking industry standard, epub is clearly the only format that can make any claim to the title, regardless of how much market share Amazon has. If we're talking about a de-facto standard, the picture may be quite different -- in the US, at any rate.

One further point: there's no reason there can't be more than one standard, under either definition.

--Nathanael

Last edited by Nathanael; 02-12-2011 at 05:46 PM.
Nathanael is offline   Reply With Quote