Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
That's blatantly false.
|
No, it isn't. Publishers don't care about the metadata other than author, title, language, ISBN and that is about it. Of those, the author, title and language are mandatory. Sometimes they also add a custom (blasphemy!) metadata for a kind of watermark. They rather put it in a colophon for a number of reasons. Most important reasons are that readers (the people, not the devices) have a bigger chance of seeing it and since they work from the same source for the e-book and physical book.
If you claim it is false, please show some real proof besides your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
If EPUB mandates the use of DC vocabulary in plain text form, it is problem of EPUB. There are simply no alternatives to it.
|
Yes there is. Custom metadata, there is nothing withholding publishers to agree amongst themselves to a standard set. They won't, because they don't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
Because they cannot rely on EPUB metadata. With clearly defined scheme, that support will be trivial.
|
See above. Your facts are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
"John Smith", "Arthur Conan Doyle", "Johannes van der Waals" and "Murakami Haruki" all parse in different way, and there is no way for library software to do that automatically without errors.
|
Yes there is and is in use in many libraries already. There are clear rules about these. Believe me, I come from a country with a lot of last names consisting out of multiple words. It can and is done multiple times easily. Also, you can use the 'store-as' as well. But publishers use that of course already since they care about metadata, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
I still don't know where did you get so many misconceptions about XML. In fact it is like XHTML, only better. They can define the same block/run model. They are interpreted by readers in the same way. The only difference is the powerless HTML with few Ebook-specific extensions and the powerful markup tailored for books.
|
We still don't know where your misconception about XML comes from. XML is
nothing. It is a hollow, empty format. It can only give substance with a schema or DTD defining it. What you are proposing will make things much more complex with NO gain at all for 98% of the people using or reading it.
The basis you are suggesting (more like demanding) has been the source of many tries in the past. NONE has worked or gotten a large share.