MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Add your voice to the new e-book standard

davidrothman · 07-06-2006, 05:07 PM

Hi, Alex. I know you haven't been tracking all the complicated nuances of e-book standards--not your fault, since this can be rather time-consuming. So let me fill you in along with other MobileRead folks. Big thanks! Perhaps--no problem if not--you can even do a prominently featured link from the home page. It'll be great if MobileRead readers can have the entire story.

The IDPF's container format is the easy stuff and relies heavily on container work associated with the ODF format. No problem. People can comment away on the container format! The core format and DRM, however, will be much more difficult, and there are some major questions as to how much the results will serve the publishers and the public vs. Adobe and ETI--in such important areas as reliable interbook links. Those companies and others like Mobipocket and eReader have built their business models around proprietary formats. Can they really change overnight?

Adobe and ETI dominate the IDPF and bear close watching. Four of the seven IDPF board members are not from publishers but from tech-related companies (http://idpf.org/about/boardofdirectors.htm). It's as if a few printers are setting the agenda for the publishing world. ETI folks preside over the now-crucial technical committees, while an Adobe exec holds a seat on the board and had a guy helping to run the technical side until a job change. An ETI man is on the IDPF board. Result? The tech-company tail is wagging the publishing dog at the expense of not just publishers but also end users like MobileRead readers.

This is why OpenReader (OpenReader.org) feels that publishers and the rest of the planet would be served better by standards-development work in a more neutral venue such as an OASIS tech committee where there would be a greater depth of technical talent, especially the disinterested varietey.

At IDPF, formerly known as the Open eBook Forum, aka the OeBF, standards have long been a lost cause. In various incarnations the group as far back as the late '90s was promising the prompt creation of standards (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...s.aspx?NID=567). No luck. Interesting track record, eh? IDPF was doing squat about consumer-level standards in recent years until OpenReader came along, and now the IDPF guys are trying to co-opt the S word. But guess what. Whether through excessive use of Flash-style proprietary plug-ins or other techniques, the Tower of eBabel will remain intact in the end unless standard-setting moves from the IDPF to a mainstream standards group.

Many and perhaps most of the techies who created the original IDPF production-level standards now refuse to have anything to do with the tainted IDPF. In the past, a more neutral approach was used. Not ETI folks but a highly respected e-text expert from the University of Illinois, for example, presided over the main technical committee at one point. Even when industry people were in charge, there was more diversity among those most actively involved in the drafting.

I believe that Adobe and ETI have contributions to make in the realm of standards--but let's not let them run the show and corrupt the standards-setting process.

Oh, and a little detail. Guess who's pretty AWOL from the IDPF's standards setting. None other than Microsoft. That shows you how seriously Redmond takes the IDPF (sarcasm alert), and with good reason beyond Microsoft's usual arrogance. The moral authority at the IDPF just isn't there, not with such a blatant rigging of the standards-setting process.

I would encourage concerned industry and media folks to catch up with Jon Noring, the main founder of OpenReader, for the whole story. Jon is at jon@openreader.org and 801-253-4037. Contrary to the canards spread by worried IDPF defenders, incidentally, Jon is not interested in chairing the proposed OASIS technical committee. We want true neutrality (I'd love for the Illinois professor to head the committee!) and hope that public pressure will force the IDPF to clean up its act and move standards out of the Adobe-ETI frog pond and into the mainstream at OASIS or at least a similarly credible group.

Thanks,
David

For latecomers: I'm cofounder of OpenReader and run the TeleRead blog (http://www.teleread.org/blog), which was fighting for genuine e-book-related interoperability long before OR existed. The main TeleRead.org site is devoted to the cause of well-stocked national digital libraries; and a continuation of proprietary e-book standards will be poison for them. Darn it, I want reliable interbook linking and other good stuff about which the IDPF does not sufficiently care.

07-06-2006, 05:07 PM	#2
davidrothman Connoisseur Posts: 60 Karma: 32 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Alexandria, VA Device: Paperwhite, $50 Fire, iPad Air 2, Nexus 6, Kobo Aura H2O	The pesky details that IDPF won't tell you about Hi, Alex. I know you haven't been tracking all the complicated nuances of e-book standards--not your fault, since this can be rather time-consuming. So let me fill you in along with other MobileRead folks. Big thanks! Perhaps--no problem if not--you can even do a prominently featured link from the home page. It'll be great if MobileRead readers can have the entire story. The IDPF's container format is the easy stuff and relies heavily on container work associated with the ODF format. No problem. People can comment away on the container format! The core format and DRM, however, will be much more difficult, and there are some major questions as to how much the results will serve the publishers and the public vs. Adobe and ETI--in such important areas as reliable interbook links. Those companies and others like Mobipocket and eReader have built their business models around proprietary formats. Can they really change overnight? Adobe and ETI dominate the IDPF and bear close watching. Four of the seven IDPF board members are not from publishers but from tech-related companies (http://idpf.org/about/boardofdirectors.htm). It's as if a few printers are setting the agenda for the publishing world. ETI folks preside over the now-crucial technical committees, while an Adobe exec holds a seat on the board and had a guy helping to run the technical side until a job change. An ETI man is on the IDPF board. Result? The tech-company tail is wagging the publishing dog at the expense of not just publishers but also end users like MobileRead readers. This is why OpenReader (OpenReader.org) feels that publishers and the rest of the planet would be served better by standards-development work in a more neutral venue such as an OASIS tech committee where there would be a greater depth of technical talent, especially the disinterested varietey. At IDPF, formerly known as the Open eBook Forum, aka the OeBF, standards have long been a lost cause. In various incarnations the group as far back as the late '90s was promising the prompt creation of standards (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...s.aspx?NID=567). No luck. Interesting track record, eh? IDPF was doing squat about consumer-level standards in recent years until OpenReader came along, and now the IDPF guys are trying to co-opt the S word. But guess what. Whether through excessive use of Flash-style proprietary plug-ins or other techniques, the Tower of eBabel will remain intact in the end unless standard-setting moves from the IDPF to a mainstream standards group. Many and perhaps most of the techies who created the original IDPF production-level standards now refuse to have anything to do with the tainted IDPF. In the past, a more neutral approach was used. Not ETI folks but a highly respected e-text expert from the University of Illinois, for example, presided over the main technical committee at one point. Even when industry people were in charge, there was more diversity among those most actively involved in the drafting. I believe that Adobe and ETI have contributions to make in the realm of standards--but let's not let them run the show and corrupt the standards-setting process. Oh, and a little detail. Guess who's pretty AWOL from the IDPF's standards setting. None other than Microsoft. That shows you how seriously Redmond takes the IDPF (sarcasm alert), and with good reason beyond Microsoft's usual arrogance. The moral authority at the IDPF just isn't there, not with such a blatant rigging of the standards-setting process. I would encourage concerned industry and media folks to catch up with Jon Noring, the main founder of OpenReader, for the whole story. Jon is at jon@openreader.org and 801-253-4037. Contrary to the canards spread by worried IDPF defenders, incidentally, Jon is not interested in chairing the proposed OASIS technical committee. We want true neutrality (I'd love for the Illinois professor to head the committee!) and hope that public pressure will force the IDPF to clean up its act and move standards out of the Adobe-ETI frog pond and into the mainstream at OASIS or at least a similarly credible group. Thanks, David For latecomers: I'm cofounder of OpenReader and run the TeleRead blog (http://www.teleread.org/blog), which was fighting for genuine e-book-related interoperability long before OR existed. The main TeleRead.org site is devoted to the cause of well-stocked national digital libraries; and a continuation of proprietary e-book standards will be poison for them. Darn it, I want reliable interbook linking and other good stuff about which the IDPF does not sufficiently care.