Quote:
Originally Posted by NatCh
I mean no disrespect, but I find that summation a bit over-simple. 
For example, that logic equally 'demonstrates' that JPG is a legitimate e-book format. I can pull up an e-book in whatever, copy/paste it into a JPG file via screen captures, and I've got an e-book in a JPG file, or a series of them. But I decline to consider JPG to be a legitimate e-book format.  |
It was meant to be simple. That's the simple definition of an ebook. My point was that the question was poorly phrased. PDF is certainly a "valid" and "legitimate" ebook format because it is used as such. There are no standards that decide what formats are "valid." This is not the debate on this thread, as kovidgoyal has just pointed out. It is, however, the question at the top of it. The question of PDF's legitimacy is a much less subjective question than one on "the suitability of rendered ebook formats as a general purpose ebook format," which is the primary debate of this thread. I mostly just wanted people to look at the word choice in the topic question. Just because a person thinks PDF shouldn't be used as a primary ebook format, doesn't mean it isn't "legitimate."
As for jpg, it contains no text, only the picture of it. In that case I question whether it really can be called an ebook. Though I suppose if a series of jpg's are wrapped up into a PDF file, it is called such as it now actually resembles a book. And then it could be read on the Hanlin V9 when it comes out.
I generally regard page images as useless, though. And generally... they are. So without any format to them, they can't be called ebooks at all. Electronic pages, maybe... haha.
