[frabjous]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, I said no deacent web design WYSIWYG interfaces exist. Most programs used by computer users are WYSIWYG!

I never said that decent WYSIWYG editors exist. If that was your claim, then I agree. My point was that the lack of them is not the fault of CSS, and that WYSIWYG editors haven't ceased to exist since the advent of CSS.

It's not really worth arguing about. Here is a case where you'll have to admit that yours is a lost cause. CSS is here to stay, like it or not.

Again, you're expecting people to do the equivalent of brain surgery to make a web page!

I said I found it easier to just look at the mark-up. I didn't recommend it for others. This is not brain surgery believe me. But that was just comparing it to using styles on a traditional word processor.

What I actually explicitly advocated for the casual user is WYSIWYM, which is easier to use than WYSIWYG.

Suresure, that's why they're dominant...oh wait, they're not. They're a specialist and rapidly dying breed outside a few narrow fields.

Where are you getting these assumptions from? Their usage has only increased, and it's a fairly new concept, developed largely because of the crap you get from WYSIWYG for the web.

In any case, number of users does not reflect quality. (Consider Internet Explorer.)

And there there is no need whatsoever, except to protect web designer's jobs, to force artificial separation at the GUI end onto the user. A properly designed standard can and should allow WYSIWYG editing. In good part, the clunky and poorly defined nature of CSS has created a situation where you either code or you go home.

I have already given reasons for the necessity of separating form and content. For you to say there is no reason without responding to those considerations is just silly.

To suggest that traditional WYSIWYG is the only way to allow ordinary people to create content is just incorrect. And I think most ordinary people aren't interested in creating style, just content.

And even if they did care about style, as I noted, it is entirely possible to create a very intuitive interface for creating CSS. And even if there weren't such a thing, it is really not very complicated. I am not a web designer. I have no formal training in programming. My degrees are all in the humanities. But I don't find CSS in the least intimidating.

I assumed that you were making a distinction between the ePub reader implemented on the Sony 505 and the desktop ADE software. Perhaps you just typed something you didn't mean.

Yeah, I expressed myself poorly, sorry. I didn't know that it supported SVG, but I was pretty sure it didn't support both, which was all I meant.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The sample was created using MathML. It does have embedded fonts which is which is part of why it doesn't really work in the web browsers.

It may well have been created by converting MathML to SVG, but open the source, and it'll become very evidence that it's all SVG. Indeed, "svg" is by far the most common XHTML tag in that document.

In any case, dedicated eBook readers that support ePub are very rare in the grand scheme of things (since that excludes Kindles). Most people who would be able to read it at all would be reading it on a web browser, or something calling upon web browser technology on a netbook or tablet.

If you were the author of that document, would you trust it being distributed only in that form? Be honest.

But even if these compatibility problems didn't exist, it still wouldn't look as good as a PDF made for my reader.

As for Calibre's viewer, open a ticket and attach the ePub since clearly it's a flaw with Calibre's viewer.

Might be worth doing so, but I expect Kovid at this point isn't professing support for SVG, and even if he is, I'm sure he's just adapting code from another open source library. The viewer is basically built on the WebKit library, and until that improves, I doubt calibre will.