Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
1) Why limit yourself with XSLT? If you trying to replace E-book reader with a web browser and feed it with autogenerated HTML, you are doing it wrong.
2) There are several XML document and E-book formats existing already, so I don't see any issues with it. Any XML format is better, as they operate on sane entities, such as <em>, not presentation HTML monsters as <span class="Kursiv"> (or even better, <span style="font-style:italic">).
|
DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, RANT COMING:
See, gang? I knew that 5 posts ago, this was a losing proposition. (Does anyone else feel like we've time-traveled back to the 90's, when XML was the BIG NEW THING?)
The whole POINT of XML was that--it was
extensible. It allowed you to use Markup, and
define your own tags, the order in which they occur, and how they should be processed or displayed. The "hoorah" about XML, basically, was that while humans can read and understand HTML, inferring the intention of a given paragraph, computers can't, in terms of SCHEMA. So..that advantages us in book creation
how, precisely? What, using SCHEMA to create all books? Yoiks.
Well, I don't know what eBook readers you're using, but the ones I use, and the ones I build eBooks for, all use HTML/XHTML, not XML straight up. While we're at it, we may as well just use Markdown, and display the book that way. Jeeze, let's just use Textile. That way, it can be even SIMPLER.
I'm sorry, but you've yet to convince me. All you've done is say that XHTML or HTML is "bad." The fact that it doesn't support advanced Calibre metadata/tags/categorizing...so what? You're assuming that everybody else wants to be able to categorize and find books based on things like "all covers by so-and-so," which
assumes arguendo that the book creators would TAG that element for you. I've seen
hundreds of eBooks that don't even have completed alt tags for images; why the hell would anyone assume that someone making eBooks with XML would fill in ALL the semantic metadata that you'd want?
This is just...pipe-dreaming. And it's not a pipe-dream that you've managed to sell to anyone here. So what, you don't like <span class="italic">? From what I am seeing from you, you want XML simply because it's MORE rigid, not less--or, it would be, IF implemented by YOU. As it is now, it's as freewheeling as HTML, for all intents and purposes.
For it to do what you want, it would have to be heavily regimented (SCHEMA, anyone?), so that everyone used the SAME elements, and worse, used the same specifications for each genre--e.g., mystery, romance, yadda-yadda. So instead of styling/formatting a book as a BOOK, you'd be stuck with a set of specifications, created by somebody ELSE, that you'd have to use for "mystery," or for "romance," et al. YICK. Talk about something created for some OTHER purpose!
XML is a way to keep large amounts of data in a somewhat tabular format. It's essentially databases for text, for all intents and purposes--like thousands of medical records. It's certainly not really designed for readers or easy reading.
I'm still waiting for you to show me ONE advantage of what you're proposing, other than (sorry) very personal-opinion arguments like "spans are bad." That's an OPINION. And it's an opinion that
not everyone shares. I don't see
any advantage in time, or ease of use or creation, or anything else in your idea. It simply SEEMS to fit with some preconceived notion you have, of how things MIGHT be, if some other party, board, committee, etc., comes up with some undefined plan to implement XML for eBooks, in a purer state than XHTML. And if they decide to use XML, but leave it as loosey-goosey as it is now? Then what? Will you be back here talking about how the XML standards are "bad," because they don't fit with your idea of how they SHOULD work?
Honestly, every single thing you're talking about is mitigated completely by any competent bookmaker that uses standard HTML and CSS. And I'd be the first to agree, yes, there are a lot of crappily-made books out there.
BUT, the vast bulk of the self-publishing industry CERTAINLY will never a) use standarized HTML or b) use XML, that's fer damn sure.
(I'm picturing the KDP Boards, if Amazon implemented an XML SCHEMA for eBooks. Mother of God.
) Hey, wait, maybe I should indeed vote for this! It's pure evil genius.
Back OT:
So, when you can show us
actual advantages, instead of an
opinion that the way HTML works is "bad," I'm certainly willing to listen. But so far, I'm only seeing your opinions about something that honestly, no offense, I'm not convinced that you understand all that well. BTW: with the exception of ePUB2
validation, pretty much all eBook readers understand and will display <em> just fine. That's a bad example.
For the record, I use schema on my website. It's a giant pain in the ass, because already, Google has "decided" what schema should be where. You use it wrongly, you're penalized. Does the SCHEMA that Google wants/allows match other SCHEMA?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, it does NOT. And the same bloody thing would happen with eBooks. Doubt it? Just go ask Apple.
(Sorry, my MR Dudes and Dudettes; </rant>).
BTW:
what XML eBook format are you proposing that already exists?
Hitch