Quote:
|
but the NAMING conventions--just like XML schema--stay the same.
|
Your naming conventions are your own—they are meaningless outside your book. When the element roles are defined by standards, there is ONE CSS applicable to ALL books.
Quote:
|
You persist in trying to argue that XML is better for the BOOKS, which is a losing argument, when all you care about is categorization and searching on metadata and semantics.
|
It enhances the quality of books by explicitly defining the structure and styling of book elements, and not leaving the end user at mercy of the book producer and their skills.
Quote:
|
will somehow improve bookmaking ITSELF.
|
No one cares about bookmakers. The new format will enhance the end user experience, as well as the distributor experience.
It seems there is a conflict of interest between you and readers, that makes you somewhat deaf to the voice of reason.
Quote:
|
the difference between one set of tags and another is moot.
|
Wrong. Random classes need to be styled explicitly, and cannot be customized by user. Predefined tags can be styled and formatted by both the reader and the user, and they allow user to have the same experience between different books. Is that a bad thing in your opinion?
Quote:
|
One last point: you keep ignoring the fact that DocBook WAS here. It came, and it went.
|
We don't need DocBook. We need a Book format, tailored for fiction and non-fiction.