[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Maybe it's me, but I don't understand what you're talking about. You don't need to use DVI driver with LaTeX--pdfLaTeX exists after all--and the only "program" that interacts with DVI driver that would need to be created already exists.

Again, I don't understand what you're talking about. What's the relevant difference?

Er...pdfLaTeX creates PDF's. Why do you want to generate a PDF on the fly? It's highly computationally expensive. And as far as I can it's x86 only. Also, LaTeX now? That's an additional overhead as well. The only even remotely sensible path for a "TeX renderer" would be device-specific DVI renderer (That's what DVI is for).

Converting between standard TeX and XHTML most certainly is trivial. You're talking to someone who has done so multiple times. The only part of it that isn't trivial is the vast array of TeX code that currently has no counterpart in XHTML, since the latter is more primitive.

XHTML is certainly not "more primative", it's just as high level, and you're willing to release a program which guarantees 100% error-free conversion? Because otherwise it means another round of proof-reading.

Just another advantage of TeX--really all you can do now for graphics in an ePub is embed JPG, GIF or PNG images, none of which are infinitely scaleable. With TeX you could put the TikZ code right in, or use .eps, and then you can zoom in to your heart's delight.

And that support is both bulky and computationally expensive. There's good reason vector support isn't handled on e-ink readers.

Of course if something isn't unqualifiedly public domain, it's not public domain, but it doesn't have to be public domain if it's something in between, but their use of it falls under the usage restrictions of that in-between. And believe me, putting a TeX renderer on a device is certainly allowed by the TeX license, even if the full details of that license aren't entirely legally clear. If companies are scared away by the gray area, so much the worse for them.

It's not what I believe, it's what a company's lawyers will believe. And they are not going to allow it. The problem is that there is no liscence specified, only the conditional (non functional) public domain. Statements by the creator are not legally sound enough to be taken as a lisence when there's a lot of money at risk.

The DRM system isn't going to be "handling TeX". What would that even mean? The DRM system just needs to be involved in en/decrypting the document's code, and I can't think of any reason why precisely the same system couldn't be used that works with HTML code.

Simply wrapping a dumb DRM system arround the text is a good way to murder battery life and slow display processing. You want the DRM system to work in a complimentary way to the format, and that means tailoring it.

Don't put "could" in scare quotes. Dozens of new packages are added to CTAN every month. There already are LaTeX packages for embedding audio and video -- in that sense, it's further along that merely being "discussed".

Quite apart from LaTeX not being the same as TeX, embedding audio and video are not at all the features I was discussing, so I'm really not sure where you came up with them. More, you cannot depend on a "package" system to work correctly across multiple e-readers, and having executable code embedded in books is a major security risk.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. "Doing the things print books can do"--how are print books relevant here? Are you going back to your untrue belief that TeX is currently being used only to produce print books?

Sure, you can use it to make ebooks, but that is not what TeX was designed for, or the intent of it's development.

LaTeX already has a way of marking what language a word is. That's all that is needed.

No, it's not. That is precisely what I mean, you're thinking in very limited terms. How about, for example, one author I know who's going to suggest that language-specific word support be embedded in ePuB's, because he's done some market research, found that his YA-orientated novels sell better with the "correct" spelling in the UK and US markets, but wants to sell a single epub ebook in both.

He's made it pretty clear that he considers TeX in all intents and purposes in the public domain, with one exception: he thinks any significant derivatives should have a different name, which is all he requires.

Conditional public domain == no liscence. Statements are, once more, not good enough for a legal department with any sense whatsoever. And yes, they'd have to have their own version, versus ePuB which is a standard. That's very, very important. We've taken this long to get to a situation where most devices can read ePuB, fracturing it again will only massively hurt the takeup of e-readers.

Other free software elements they use most certainly do have proper liscences, and there is no problem whatsoever in using them. The problem is not the cost, not the ability of other people to use the code or anything else, it is the lack of a useable liscence for the code.

Actually, what I'm suggesting isn't necessarily incompatible with ePub being the standard. It'd probably be easier to modify the TeX renderer to directly render ePub/HTML source (since HTML and TeX source is pretty similar as is) than to produce an entirely new high-quality renderer for ePub.

Then suggest it. I don't think you'll get far, though, especially given the legal issue. (That is a first-look fail, regardless of any technical merits)