Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroa
English is (obviously  ) not my first language but there are very little ressources and knowledgeable people on the subject in my first language. |
Which language?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroa
The reason I wanna do this is simply because a paper version of this book exists and its TOC is separated in three parts, each one listings all the chapters/pages of a certain type while they're not actually grouped in the actual book. That's a pretty common thing for art or cooking books' TOCs here.
|
Okay, so why not have two TOCs?
1. The HTML TOC + toc.ncx follows the reading order.
Your physical book goes from page 1->999, so this will follow that:
- Recipe #1
- Recipe #2
- Recipe #3
Let's call this one "All Recipes".
2. A "Categories TOC" (or whatever they call it in cookbooks).
This can be a 2nd HTML TOC that you can then sort however you want:
- Beef
-- Recipe #2
- Chicken
-- Recipe #3
- Vegetables
-- Recipe #1
You can stylize this like:
Code:
<h2>Beef</h2>
<p class="toc"><a href="../Text/Recipe02.xhtml">Beef Wellington</a></p>
<h2>Chicken</h2>
<p class="toc"><a href="../Text/Recipe03.xhtml">Chicken Parmesan</a></p>
And there's no need to link the headings.
* * *
When the reader wants a specific recipe, they use #1.
If they wanted to see all beef recipes, they hop to the Categories TOC, then go to where they want.
* * *
Side Note: And I agree with JSWolf on TOCs pointing to themselves in the NCX... pretty dumb (and I always get rid of it).
But in this cookbook case, I'd add the Categories TOC in as the first link:
- Categories TOC
- Recipe #1
- Recipe #2
- Recipe #3
This way, the NCX readers can easily hop to the categories if needed.
And in the ebook itself, I'd place the file directly after the frontmatter + TOC:
- titlepage.xhtml
- copyright.xhtml
- TOC.xhtml
- Categories.TOC.xhtml
- Recipe01.xhtml
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Wow! That's one heck of a problematic customer. I would guess that he's the type to set his TV to fill to prevent the black bars.
|
"Overscan" or "Fill".
Some of the worst settings to ever be devised.
Overscan zooms in and crops the image (losing ~5-15% at least).
Fill stretches up/down + left/right, completely distorting the image (the "oompa loompa" effect).
I explained similar situation back with book covers in
"SVG images - why?".
Now with cellphones being all sorts of odd ratios (18.5×9)... some people are cropping/distorting their videos/images even further to "fill the screen". It's a travesty.
And don't get me started on disgusting vertical video... (Made even worse by "converting to widescreen" by filling the black bars with complete gibberish! The absolute worst of all worlds!!!)