[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by fdwojo

As much as I appreciate the number of them, none of you have really answered my question (that I probably asked badly).

My question:

With respect to eBooks ONLY, what can XHTML do that HTML cannot?

You're... not really understanding what people are telling you, so let's try it another way.

There's no such thing as HTML. At all, period. Anyone who told you HTML existed was completely and utterly wrong. Therefore, there cannot be any difference between HTML (which does not exist), and XHTML (which does exist).

XHTML is an interesting language, which you've been *thinking of* as "HTML", because that "X" is too long and therefore it's fun to abbreviate it. One of its quirks is that if there are errors in XHTML, the renderer throws up its hands and says "hey, you're not allowed to do that. I refuse to even look at your file".

Then it turns out HTML does in fact exist, even though we don't like to admit it. It's what happens if you take XHTML and remove the requirement that errors are errors.

HTML is a bastardized form of XHTML, with the sole difference being that in the event of an error, HTML is permitted to randomly guess what it thinks you meant, instead of displaying an error message.

So, the first step here is to define a glossary. Henceforth, we will refer to two terms.

• XHTML - XHTML, the standard for writing ebooks and webpages and stuff like that
• files with errors in them - sometimes known as HTML

Now, you have asked a question.

"With respect to eBooks ONLY, what can XHTML do that files with errors in them cannot?"

So, the answer to your question is that files with errors in them can "do" errors. But I don't know why you would want to do that, so don't do that.

In fact, as has been repeatedly stated, EPUB does not permit files with errors in them, therefore you cannot use files with errors in them, regardless of what you call them. So it turns out that given the choice between XHTML and "files with errors in them"... you don't actually have a choice, there is only XHTML.

Originally Posted by fdwojo

I would not consider myself an expert at HTML, but I've been editing my Sigil eBooks successfully for almost a decade now, and many of the cautions you made, I do watch out for, closing tags, proper syntax, etc.

I also realize that it is what is *in* the file that makes it HTML. But because of that fact that for all the eBooks I edit, (and I do edit any Kindle eBooks I buy to combine individual stories together when it's a series), it seems like nothing outside the realm of HTML seems to occur. Thus the question.

There is that word again. "HTML". Please stop using it.

"it seems like nothing outside the realm of files with errors in them seems to occur."

That's a pretty weird thing to say. The most obvious thing that occurs is the fact that there are no errors.

Originally Posted by fdwojo

Most of what I do when I'm editing eBooks, (or rarely, writing an eBook), seems pretty straightforward. Occasionally, I will wish that there was a way to have a picture in the text with the text wrapped around it, but aside from that, I am fine. (and there probably is, but I don't know how)

But with all the push for Sigil to be able to do things with XHTML (and it did handle it pretty well before), I'm wondering if there are things in my eBooks that I can do with XHTML that I CAN'T do with HTML. Is there anything that people do in eBooks that XHTML can do that HTML cannot?

I do not know where you got this incorrect information from. Sigil has never pushed to be able to do things with XHTML. Pushing to be able to do things with XHTML, would imply that there was a time when Sigil did something other than XHTML, and that is just plain wrong, since it never has, does not, and never will do something other than XHTML. Sigil. since day #1, is an EPUB file editor, EPUBs use the XHTML file format, and Sigil, hence, has always, since day #1, used XHTML. Nothing more*, and nothing less.


* -- discounting Sigil's support for additional resources like CSS or PNG or JPEG files, which is orthogonal to the current discussion.