Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
Another way of saying what you say there is: "The day websites become good enough that HTML+CSS matches or even improves professionally typeset magazines and books, then magazines and books become pointless."
Ok... so my rephrasing kind of breaks after the comma, but, with all due respect: That will never happen. I really am not exaggerating in my "impossible to automate typesetting" claims. Can't be done: it requires a person. Automatic reflow is handing the keys to hardware+software--it will look like it was done by hardware+software instead of a person.
Websites have been around for well over a decade, and they remain typographically horrible. Designers, web designers themselves even generally acknowledge that.
The approach ePub takes (HTML + CSS) already failed to make the web as good as professionally produced print materials; it cannot make eBooks achieve that goal either.
But I think I should stop, because this is a long-running argument wherein the two sides do not tend to concede points to one another.*
- Ahi
* I mean in general, not specifically in this thread.
|
I don't think this is a fair statement you made on HTML+CSS. The reason web does not look as good as PDF is because they are serving different purposes. HTML pages are designed for the lowest common denominator and are designed with content shifting in mind. So they cannot be optimized for typesetting. PDF are made specifically for typesetting.
However without these constrains, I have seen some graphic designers design one-off web pages that would knock the socks off of you. Printed out the pages would look near identical to a PDF.
HTML is quite capable just not utilized properly. Where the difference lies is that PDF will not change it's layout if that same document is viewed on a smaller device, and the HTML will reflow and change altering the typesetting.
=X=