Quote:
Originally Posted by jswinden
You are blaming ADE, but the blame really should be put on Sony's implementation of ADE on the 300. On the 300 Sony displays page numbers in the right margin and does not allow text to be justified. However, on the 900 page numbers are not displayed in the right margin and text is justified. Other device manufacturers who use ADE have different implementations.
As for LRF, it is crap. It is a bloated file format that had super-wide margins on Sony readers and was not capable of being easily deDRMed. I'm glad this format is extinct.
|
Disagree, and see above for LRF vs. LRX. LRF produced the best looking e-books I've seen on any e-Reader. Plus it has headers that work, and table of contents that show in the menu (only self-generated LRFs).
Calling it crap is just rhetorical.
Quote:
|
You argument is what the ancient Greeks would have called pathetic. From pathos meaning emotion and not from logos meaning knowledge. Hence in modern English pathetic. Even a so-so professor will tear you a new one if you use that kind of pathetic argument within a paper.
|
Um. You actually didn't even address a single thing I said. Ironically, I was relaying a
fact: publishers produce different editions that have different page numbers; hence the need for specifying editions in bibliographies.
I will (sarcastically) congratulate you though. This is the rudest -- and maybe only -- flame I've received on MobileRead. There is something to be said for civility, and MobileRead is a great site for that very reason.
-Pie