[KevinH]

Hi elchamaco,

Yes this is very different from all other dictionaries I have seen.

Examining the mobi7 header shows that there is no meta inflexion index
at all but a new index called index_names does seem to exist and be used.

Here is a snippet from the Mobi7 header. See the metainfindex field has been set to missing 0xFFFFFFFF but something called index_names does have a non 0xFFFFFFFF value and it points to a set of unknown indexes further along than the metaorthindex.

Dumping section 0, Mobipocket Header version: 7, total length 272
Mobipocket header from section 0
     Offset  Value Hex Dec        Description
0x000 (  0)     0x0002          2 compression_type
0x002 (  2)     0x0000          0 fill0
0x004 (  4) 0x054DEC84   88992900 text_length
0x008 (  8)     0x54DF      21727 text_records
0x00A ( 10)     0x1000       4096 max_section_size
0x00C ( 12)     0x0000          0 crypto_type
0x00E ( 14)     0x0000          0 fill1
0x010 ( 16)       MOBI            magic
0x014 ( 20) 0x00000100        256 header_length (from MOBI)
0x018 ( 24) 0x00000002          2 type
0x01C ( 28) 0x0000FDE9      65001 codepage
0x020 ( 32) 0x434E1E13 1129192979 unique_id
0x024 ( 36) 0x00000007          7 version
0x028 ( 40) 0x000054E1      21729 metaorthindex
0x02C ( 44) 0xFFFFFFFF 4294967295 metainflindex
0x030 ( 48) 0x000055E7      21991 index_names
0x034 ( 52) 0xFFFFFFFF 4294967295 index_keys

Here are snippets from the map of sections in the mobi ebook:

The metaorthindex points here:

21729 54E1  0x1C9B030 0x01F04    43458       0 Unknown INDX section, extracting as Unknown21729_INDX.dat
21730 54E2  0x1C9CF34 0x0FBF0    43460       0 Unknown INDX section, extracting as Unknown21730_INDX.dat
21731 54E3  0x1CACB24 0x0FBEC    43462       0 Unknown INDX section, extracting as Unknown21731_INDX.dat
...

--snip--

The index_names point here.

21991 55E7  0x2C72C3C 0x000E0    43982       0 Unknown INDX section, extracting as Unknown21991_INDX.dat
21992 55E8  0x2C72D1C 0x000CC    43984       0 Unknown INDX section,

So the current dictionary code will not deal with this at all as it never even looks at the "index_names" nor does it know how to interpret its data.

I think that field name was based on information in the Wiki here and there may be no one who remembers why it was named "index_names" as I did not name it.

So supporting these strange dictionaries which have errors in their own kindlegen logs and who use who use no inflections index may require a big reverse engineering effort.

This is not something I can take on soon. But if you post the dictionary someplace that is not so swamped by unknown attacks (say www.datafilehost.com where I at least know how to avoid the issues) and send a personal mail on this site to "KevinH" with the link. I will take a look at eventually supporting it, just not right now as I am tied up with Sigil projects.

Thanks,

KevinH

Originally Posted by elchamaco

Hi,

I generated the log with 0.77. The unpack gives the same result as 0.75.

Regards.