Ben's missing the point, again and again.
OASIS includes tech people from MANY companies who could play a very active role in the standards development process without ETI and Adobe dominating the show. Horror of horrors, most OASIS experts aren't as tied to specific companies within the e-book biz as key members of the IDPF crowd are.
At the same time, many at OASIS possess far, far more technical expertise than typical reps from publishers and libraries. So Abobe, etc., couldn't set the tone.
Meanwhile I remain baffled why ETI cochairs must preside over both of the crucial tech committees at the IDPF.
Paxadoxically, then, while OASIS does consist of technology companies, it is far more likely than the IDPF to give us consumer- and publisher-friendly standards--reflecting the diversity of its membership.
As for the DRAFT OpenReader spec, it's based on the old work of IDPF long before Adobe-ETI took it over and ignored the Pub Struct Working where standards dev happened. A little rigging, eh?
Simply put, Ben's note is is really risible.
As for the missing blind man, he's more needed than ever on the IDPF board--it's a shame George isn't back to oversee the standards setters.
> Yes, there is no common consumer-level standard. Mr. Rothman lays the entire blame for this on the IDPF. But really, it's the publishers, whose interests he seems to hold so dear, who didn't want a consumer level format, because of their fears about piracy. And not just their fears, but the fears of authors' associations, who took out full-page ads and wrote long editorials decrying one consumer format for ebooks.
"Didn't want." The past tense would appear to be rather operative. According to the AAP in the here and now, the publishers very much want to see true e-book standardards as long as good DRM options exist. Problem is, the IDPF foxes are supposed to watch the publishing hens. We cannot trust 'em to come up with truly interoperable standards for core formats and DRM over the long haul. While the IDPF isn't the only reason for the Tower of eBabel, it has been no small factor. The IDPF let its standards efforts fade away until OpenReader came along. Pre-OR, the IDPF was "agnostic" about consumer-level standards, lest it offend proprietary formatters like Adobe.
> Also, I really don't like having my friends and colleagues bashed in public. I am most certainly not a neutral party, here, as Mr. Rothman has discovered, to the point of censoring my comments on his blog. I guess he's really not for open discussions among his peers, hmm?
As for an accusation of censoring Ben's comments on the TeleBlog--well, that's a pretty good indication of his care with the facts (sarcasm alert).
Folks at MobileRead will agree with me that there are major problems happening with comment spam. The result is that the TeleBlog has an aggressive filter. Legitimate comments get lost at times, and we do what we can to restore them; I encourage people to contact me at drNOSPAMPLEASEteleread.org if there are problems.
Recently I took Ben's IP address and put it on a WHITE list. I use Spam Karm II and Aksimet, the two may be warring with each other, and I can make no guarantees. But I am VERY interested in hearing from Ben if he gets "censored" again. The TeleBlog has had perhaps 700 commenters over the years. We've DELed nobody other than spammers. One man, a troll zapped from various mailing lists, was headed toward being banned, just as Ben would be if he lapses from dissent into trolldom. But the troll just gave up, knowing the end was near. We're a community just like MobileRead. But so far, Ben--no deal, no censorship for you. Repeat: you're WHITE listed. Write me any time you're "censored." The real censors are at IDPF--the black hats who drove off independent-minded techies who wanted consumer-level standards.
Meanwhile I note that in his fixation on the TeleBlog Ben paid insufficient heed to Jon Noring, the founder of OpenReader. Poor Jon. He's probably feeling left out.
Finally I'm flattered that Ben sees OpenReader and the TeleBlog as such a menace. Great. Thanks, Ben buddy! We're pretty cost-effective. Budget for IDPF director's salary: $100K. Budget for OpenReader and TeleBlog salaries: $0.
Reminder: the blog covers plenty else beyond e-book standards. But we won't skimp on coverage, either--not when the Tower of eBabel is one of the main issues of e-bookdom.
Jon and I, you see, have this powerful aversion to e-books ending up on the electronic equivalent of acidic paper. We need durable, nonproprietary e-book formats, not ephemeral dreck from Adobe and the rest. Clean up the standards process NOW or we'll eventually see open standards Flashized--or the equivalent--out of existence. An OASIS-type approach involving many tech-hip standards setters would be a great precaution against standards rot.
Thanks,
David
http://www.teleread.org/blog