Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
It is—if HTML cannot provide semantic markup, users cannot customize it. Also, this way of thought is ridiculous—should we also not to have a customizable typeface, body text alignment and color schemes, because the publisher has already decided on them for us?
As for the format, we already have the tools we need: XML (not the obsolete (X)HTML, 5 or not), CSS and OPC to bring it all together. What we do not have, is the will coming from EBook consumers, not some 'open' 'standards' committee.
|
I started to write a response to this, but...I absolutely don't understand the gist here. I think that the OP thinks that simply because you can NAME an element in HTML, something like ARTICLE, that's somehow "better" than having "p.article" and p class="article" (respectively) in CSS and HTML.
The point here completely eludes me. For XML, 99% of the time, you have to transform it with XSL, etc., into XHTML, in the first place. So...what's the advantage?
Exactly?
P.S.: @eschwartz: yeah, I'm with you on this one. I think the real problem is a lack of usage; but I'm always open to new ideas, if a better format can be created, sold, bought, and implemented.
Hitch