MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - The fight for a reflowable e-document standard

davidrothman · 09-03-2006, 09:34 PM

Hi, Bob. Major thanks for caring about the e-book standards issues. Here’s to the end of the Tower of eBabel! Meanwhile, as an OpenReader co-founder, let me add to the fun and supply a few more details.

First off, for those who didn’t see my uppity essay in Publishers Weekly, let me repeat your pointer to the following URL:

http://publishersweekly.com/article/...l?text=rothman

Angered by OpenReader’s presence in PW, Bill McCoy has erupted with a surrealistic response. It’s just what we’d expect from an Adobe executive who also sits on the board of the International Digital Publishing Forum. And I’d like to counter one McCoy canard right now--Bill’s perfect silliness about the nature of our standards-setting.

Contrary to his establishmentarian line, OpenReader wants a by-the-book approach with far more integrity than the IDPF has shown.

Specifics? Well, unlike the IDPF, we strongly prefer to see the actual standards work spun off to an OASIS technical committee. We’re working on this and want it done in style, one reason we haven’t plunged in immediately. Bill meanwhile has helped our cause with insulting remarks challenging OASIS’s suitability for e-book standard-setting. Thanks, buddy!

Let me also say we believe that membership selection and other matters should be determined by OASIS rules, not rules from OpenReader. Also, someone other than Jon Noring, founder of OpenReader, should chair the OASIS standards committee--the man has suffered enough abuse already from the likes of Bill. Meanwhile, yes, Jon has come up with a draft spec. But we think that the development and evolution of the standards should be substantively handled elsewhere with people from many organizations involved, including, yes, Adobe and ETI.

We just don't want Adobe and ETI dominating the show. While publishing interests may sit in on the IDPF technical meetings, the usual suspects are making the real decisions, which is scary when you think about the potential use of proprietary DRM to nullify "open standards." As I see it, the OASIS committee should and will be far more than just the rubber stamp that Bill McCoy wants the IDPF to be for Adobe and the rest. OASIS, after all, is the outfit which popularized the Open Document Format, and which includes such members as Sun and IBM, along with people passionate about e-books.

Now, compare OASIS to the tiny world of the IDPF. It may be a Player in e-books, but by OASIS technical standards, we’re talking about a midget. Reps from ETI chair both the container committee and the core format committee of the IDPF--frog ponds lacking the widest range of technical talent. Better that standard-setting happen in the OASIS sea. Otherwise a year or so from now, MobileRead will still be carrying complaints from eBabel victims. As OpenReader views matters, the more neutral venue of OASIS would be a far better setting than the IDPF for the razing of the Tower.

Something else to clarify is our attitude toward publishers; we'd actually like to see more publisher power in the IDPF, most of whose board members are now from tech-related companies rather than traditional publishers or librarydom. While big publishers have generally been more influential in the IDPF than smaller ones, even the giants are feeling the pain of supporting all those formats at the consumer level.

For years Jon and other techies tried to get the IDPF to listen to complaints from publishers and others. It was deaf, and that's why OpenReader came about--followed by the IDPF's naked attempts to steal the standards spotlight. The e-book establishment’s strategies can only go so far, however. Just wait until the topic of DRM comes up, and usual suspects either run off in different directions or settle the matter in a way that's more helpful to present business models than to publishers and consumers. Microsoft, while an IDPF member, isn’t actively participating in the standards process; and whatever the reason, a leading e-book-retailer isn’t even listed as an IDPF member any more.

I know I'm skeptical about the IDPF, but there are definite reasons. Since the late '90s this group has failed to live up to its promises despite all the hundreds of thousands and perhaps more than the group has spent (that's why some large publishers privately regard the group as a joke, keeping their sentiments to themselves since they’re too busy putting out books to challenge the likes of Bill). At one point the IDPF even said it would be “agnostic” about consumer standards--a wonderful euphemism for a do-nothing approach.

By contrast, with virtually $0 for OpenReader and a lot of starving at OSoft, an OpenReader-compatible dotReader will soon be appearing. Go to dotreader.com and share with OSoft your suggestions. Rather than just dissing IDPF, OpenReader has been hard at work solving the eBabel problem, and we hope other implementers will join OSoft.

We’d love for an OpenReader version of dotReader to be out right now, but I don’t think we’ve done too badly, especially considering all the bizarre statements that we’ve had to spend time countering from IDPF-linked people. Bill McCoy’s latest blog entry is a good example. So is the weird stuff that MobileRead quite unwittingly picked up from him and perhaps those of a similar mindset.

Bob, you can help the cause of open e-book standards by continuing to study the issues yourself rather than just quoting Bill. Sometimes one side is right or at least mainly right. To name an example beyond the facts already given, I’m vastly amused by Adobe’s efforts to portray a OpenReader as an elitist techie conspiracy. We’re actually coming at this from the opposite direction; we want e-books to be simpler to for consumers to use, and that means a universal format capable of handling many applications. It’s true that Jon Noring, OpenReader’s founder, is accomplished enough technically to point out some major technical flaws in the IDPF’s standards work, but if anything, I’d love to see more of THAT kind of elitism. It’s why I want the standards efforts to be done by top experts at OASIS, under close supervision from publishers and ideally with far more active participation from them--especially smaller houses, and even individual authors.

Amusingly, Bill McCoy’s reply to my Publishers Weekly article didn’t even mention Jon by name (although you can bet Bill has in other places). Yes, I wrote the article; but Jon founded OpenReader. Am I the master uber-techie Bill fears? While I’ve spent years writing about e-book issues, it’s been from the perspective of a content guy. I’m not a coder but have absolute respect for the true whizzes who can bring to life my hopes for e-books. I’m author of six p-books from Ballantine, St. Martin’s Press, etc., and I’d love to see e-books more competitive with the Web. I can’t tell you how much interactivity would help. We’ve seen the possibilities from the blog world. That is why I hate it when Bill McCoy and friends try to get in the way. I could counter more nonsense from the Bill, Adobe and the IDPF; but I’ve already spent enough of my weekend.

As for the TeleBlog (http://www.teleread.org/blog), it’s about much more than e-book standards--everything from the $100 laptop project to libraries and copyright and public domain projects. I hope people will drop by while continuing to enjoy MobileRead as much as I do. In case people are curious, the TeleRead site as a whole is devoted to the cause of well-stocked national digital library systems in the States and elsewhere--it existed along before OpenReader did. TeleRead.org dates back to the 1990s.

Now on to Ron’s comments about DRM. I’d love for people to tell publishers about their hostility to the technology, and for e-book reviewers to note when a book is DRMed and what the conditions are. Let the marketplace prevail! Alas, however, without DRM available, major publishers will avoid any standard. So OpenReader intends to oblige them and deal in good faith, while, however, alerting publishers about the downside. See Jon’s essay called The Perils of DRM Overkill for Large Publishers. The URL is:

http://www.teleread.org/publishersdrm.htm

Ron, we’re with you--I myself try to avoid today’s DRMed books as much as possible, given the very real chance that future hardware may no longer be able to display them. Let’s hope the publishing industry can see the light. If nothing else, meantime, remember that any OpenReader-related DRM will be (1) optional for publishers, (2) done in a way that avoids an Adobe- or Microsoft-style chokehold and (3) allow books to be accessed permanently and owned for real. With DRM, OpenReader will go either the Open Source route or a semi-proprietary one, if the standards setters believe this is necessary. I’m rooting for the open source possibilities if it can be user friendly. We’ll see what the standards setters deem effective without anything being a chokehold (we know that today’s DRM is better at enforcing Adobe’s marketshare than in protecting e-books).

Meanwhile, Ron, I hope you’ll show some optimism here and spread word about OpenReader’s possibilities. Despite no budget for marketing, we’re in touch with some of the world’s largest publishers, and they’re excited by our technology, as well as dotReader’s DRM--which is far, far gentler on readers than the present variety from Adobe and the like. Just as encouragingly, smaller publishers, stores and distributors are telling us how much they hate the costs and hassles of the present DRM systems. Yes, publishers are already starting to commit to us in Real Life. Freeload Press, subject of news stories the world over, will be using OSoft’s dotReader next year because of many students’ aversion to PDF textbooks. Adobe can talk all it wants about the future. OpenReader and its implementer will unveil a reflowable solution in just weeks, one that should make students more comfortable with e-books and give them more benefits such as shared annotations. As for formats, we’ll have wrinkles that go far beyond the existing HTMLish approaches.

Stay tuned, Ron, and keep the feedback coming. Unlike the IDPF suits, you’re looking out for the interests of readers, and we appreciate that.

Thanks,
David

David Rothman,

Co-founder, OpenReader Consortium
http://www.openreader.org | davidrothman@openreader.org
Telephone: 703-370-6540 (near Washington, D.C.)

Main perp of the TeleRead Blog: http://www.teleread.org/blog

P.S. Detail for Bob: My Publishers Weekly piece listed some Fairfax County Public Library books that weren’t in Mobipocket format, the only DRMed one that the Pepper Pad handles. But FCPL does carry Mobipocket editions of other books. You’d have been better off without the comma after “offerings.” Hey, not to worry. Your main point stands. Why should e-book formats determine which books we can read from the library? Thanks again for your interest in eBabel matters!

09-03-2006, 09:34 PM	#3
davidrothman Connoisseur Posts: 60 Karma: 32 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Alexandria, VA Device: Paperwhite, $50 Fire, iPad Air 2, Nexus 6, Kobo Aura H2O	Hi, Bob. Major thanks for caring about the e-book standards issues. Here’s to the end of the Tower of eBabel! Meanwhile, as an OpenReader co-founder, let me add to the fun and supply a few more details. First off, for those who didn’t see my uppity essay in Publishers Weekly, let me repeat your pointer to the following URL: http://publishersweekly.com/article/...l?text=rothman Angered by OpenReader’s presence in PW, Bill McCoy has erupted with a surrealistic response. It’s just what we’d expect from an Adobe executive who also sits on the board of the International Digital Publishing Forum. And I’d like to counter one McCoy canard right now--Bill’s perfect silliness about the nature of our standards-setting. Contrary to his establishmentarian line, OpenReader wants a by-the-book approach with far more integrity than the IDPF has shown. Specifics? Well, unlike the IDPF, we strongly prefer to see the actual standards work spun off to an OASIS technical committee. We’re working on this and want it done in style, one reason we haven’t plunged in immediately. Bill meanwhile has helped our cause with insulting remarks challenging OASIS’s suitability for e-book standard-setting. Thanks, buddy! Let me also say we believe that membership selection and other matters should be determined by OASIS rules, not rules from OpenReader. Also, someone other than Jon Noring, founder of OpenReader, should chair the OASIS standards committee--the man has suffered enough abuse already from the likes of Bill. Meanwhile, yes, Jon has come up with a draft spec. But we think that the development and evolution of the standards should be substantively handled elsewhere with people from many organizations involved, including, yes, Adobe and ETI. We just don't want Adobe and ETI dominating the show. While publishing interests may sit in on the IDPF technical meetings, the usual suspects are making the real decisions, which is scary when you think about the potential use of proprietary DRM to nullify "open standards." As I see it, the OASIS committee should and will be far more than just the rubber stamp that Bill McCoy wants the IDPF to be for Adobe and the rest. OASIS, after all, is the outfit which popularized the Open Document Format, and which includes such members as Sun and IBM, along with people passionate about e-books. Now, compare OASIS to the tiny world of the IDPF. It may be a Player in e-books, but by OASIS technical standards, we’re talking about a midget. Reps from ETI chair both the container committee and the core format committee of the IDPF--frog ponds lacking the widest range of technical talent. Better that standard-setting happen in the OASIS sea. Otherwise a year or so from now, MobileRead will still be carrying complaints from eBabel victims. As OpenReader views matters, the more neutral venue of OASIS would be a far better setting than the IDPF for the razing of the Tower. Something else to clarify is our attitude toward publishers; we'd actually like to see more publisher power in the IDPF, most of whose board members are now from tech-related companies rather than traditional publishers or librarydom. While big publishers have generally been more influential in the IDPF than smaller ones, even the giants are feeling the pain of supporting all those formats at the consumer level. For years Jon and other techies tried to get the IDPF to listen to complaints from publishers and others. It was deaf, and that's why OpenReader came about--followed by the IDPF's naked attempts to steal the standards spotlight. The e-book establishment’s strategies can only go so far, however. Just wait until the topic of DRM comes up, and usual suspects either run off in different directions or settle the matter in a way that's more helpful to present business models than to publishers and consumers. Microsoft, while an IDPF member, isn’t actively participating in the standards process; and whatever the reason, a leading e-book-retailer isn’t even listed as an IDPF member any more. I know I'm skeptical about the IDPF, but there are definite reasons. Since the late '90s this group has failed to live up to its promises despite all the hundreds of thousands and perhaps more than the group has spent (that's why some large publishers privately regard the group as a joke, keeping their sentiments to themselves since they’re too busy putting out books to challenge the likes of Bill). At one point the IDPF even said it would be “agnostic” about consumer standards--a wonderful euphemism for a do-nothing approach. By contrast, with virtually $0 for OpenReader and a lot of starving at OSoft, an OpenReader-compatible dotReader will soon be appearing. Go to dotreader.com and share with OSoft your suggestions. Rather than just dissing IDPF, OpenReader has been hard at work solving the eBabel problem, and we hope other implementers will join OSoft. We’d love for an OpenReader version of dotReader to be out right now, but I don’t think we’ve done too badly, especially considering all the bizarre statements that we’ve had to spend time countering from IDPF-linked people. Bill McCoy’s latest blog entry is a good example. So is the weird stuff that MobileRead quite unwittingly picked up from him and perhaps those of a similar mindset. Bob, you can help the cause of open e-book standards by continuing to study the issues yourself rather than just quoting Bill. Sometimes one side is right or at least mainly right. To name an example beyond the facts already given, I’m vastly amused by Adobe’s efforts to portray a OpenReader as an elitist techie conspiracy. We’re actually coming at this from the opposite direction; we want e-books to be simpler to for consumers to use, and that means a universal format capable of handling many applications. It’s true that Jon Noring, OpenReader’s founder, is accomplished enough technically to point out some major technical flaws in the IDPF’s standards work, but if anything, I’d love to see more of THAT kind of elitism. It’s why I want the standards efforts to be done by top experts at OASIS, under close supervision from publishers and ideally with far more active participation from them--especially smaller houses, and even individual authors. Amusingly, Bill McCoy’s reply to my Publishers Weekly article didn’t even mention Jon by name (although you can bet Bill has in other places). Yes, I wrote the article; but Jon founded OpenReader. Am I the master uber-techie Bill fears? While I’ve spent years writing about e-book issues, it’s been from the perspective of a content guy. I’m not a coder but have absolute respect for the true whizzes who can bring to life my hopes for e-books. I’m author of six p-books from Ballantine, St. Martin’s Press, etc., and I’d love to see e-books more competitive with the Web. I can’t tell you how much interactivity would help. We’ve seen the possibilities from the blog world. That is why I hate it when Bill McCoy and friends try to get in the way. I could counter more nonsense from the Bill, Adobe and the IDPF; but I’ve already spent enough of my weekend. As for the TeleBlog (http://www.teleread.org/blog), it’s about much more than e-book standards--everything from the $100 laptop project to libraries and copyright and public domain projects. I hope people will drop by while continuing to enjoy MobileRead as much as I do. In case people are curious, the TeleRead site as a whole is devoted to the cause of well-stocked national digital library systems in the States and elsewhere--it existed along before OpenReader did. TeleRead.org dates back to the 1990s. Now on to Ron’s comments about DRM. I’d love for people to tell publishers about their hostility to the technology, and for e-book reviewers to note when a book is DRMed and what the conditions are. Let the marketplace prevail! Alas, however, without DRM available, major publishers will avoid any standard. So OpenReader intends to oblige them and deal in good faith, while, however, alerting publishers about the downside. See Jon’s essay called The Perils of DRM Overkill for Large Publishers. The URL is: http://www.teleread.org/publishersdrm.htm Ron, we’re with you--I myself try to avoid today’s DRMed books as much as possible, given the very real chance that future hardware may no longer be able to display them. Let’s hope the publishing industry can see the light. If nothing else, meantime, remember that any OpenReader-related DRM will be (1) optional for publishers, (2) done in a way that avoids an Adobe- or Microsoft-style chokehold and (3) allow books to be accessed permanently and owned for real. With DRM, OpenReader will go either the Open Source route or a semi-proprietary one, if the standards setters believe this is necessary. I’m rooting for the open source possibilities if it can be user friendly. We’ll see what the standards setters deem effective without anything being a chokehold (we know that today’s DRM is better at enforcing Adobe’s marketshare than in protecting e-books). Meanwhile, Ron, I hope you’ll show some optimism here and spread word about OpenReader’s possibilities. Despite no budget for marketing, we’re in touch with some of the world’s largest publishers, and they’re excited by our technology, as well as dotReader’s DRM--which is far, far gentler on readers than the present variety from Adobe and the like. Just as encouragingly, smaller publishers, stores and distributors are telling us how much they hate the costs and hassles of the present DRM systems. Yes, publishers are already starting to commit to us in Real Life. Freeload Press, subject of news stories the world over, will be using OSoft’s dotReader next year because of many students’ aversion to PDF textbooks. Adobe can talk all it wants about the future. OpenReader and its implementer will unveil a reflowable solution in just weeks, one that should make students more comfortable with e-books and give them more benefits such as shared annotations. As for formats, we’ll have wrinkles that go far beyond the existing HTMLish approaches. Stay tuned, Ron, and keep the feedback coming. Unlike the IDPF suits, you’re looking out for the interests of readers, and we appreciate that. Thanks, David David Rothman, Co-founder, OpenReader Consortium http://www.openreader.org \| davidrothman@openreader.org Telephone: 703-370-6540 (near Washington, D.C.) Main perp of the TeleRead Blog: http://www.teleread.org/blog P.S. Detail for Bob: My Publishers Weekly piece listed some Fairfax County Public Library books that weren’t in Mobipocket format, the only DRMed one that the Pepper Pad handles. But FCPL does carry Mobipocket editions of other books. You’d have been better off without the comma after “offerings.” Hey, not to worry. Your main point stands. Why should e-book formats determine which books we can read from the library? Thanks again for your interest in eBabel matters!