Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
Why would I want to?
I just did a quick search on www.waterstones.com for several authors, and the ebook selection is laughably poor. Their site also has visual errors with webkit browsers. So much for standards-setting....
And if such was the criteria for standards, then .azw would be king. |
.azw would be and probably
is King in North America, but let's not forget that most of the world doesn't live in the USA and own a Kindle.
You can keep your fixed, inflexible, looks-like-a-book but doesn't act how we expect things to act in a digital age, format. And I'll have my standards compliant, scalable, one-file-fits-all, based on web technologies ePub standard.
The one thing you never seem to grasp in all these arguments is that I, and many other people, don't want to 'replicate' a book with our file format. We want a format that 'fits' how we read now, not how we used to read in the non-digital world. Same can be said for the web itself. I can't replicate a 'magazine' layout on the web, not with any accuracy, but why would I want to? The principles of design change dependent on the medium and the media used. Blogs are the equivalent of magazines on the web, note that word, 'equivalent'. Not the same, but equivalent.