Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
But what really makes these any better then ePub?
|
You said it, I didn't.
However, since you did: The fact that its semantic mark-up instead of hodge-podge HTML aimed at getting finicky display software to cooperate makes it better...
at preserving semantic and formatting information in a given text.
In fact, in another thread, I have explicitly stated that ePub is probably the most ideal format for archiving by the non-professional-Librarian, given all considerations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
Epub isn't XML; it has XML as one of its parts. But it also has HTML tags. A strict XML file shouldn't have anything other than XML tags (I think)*.
* Could someone correct me if I'm wrong?
|
You're not wrong. An XML file usually is about specifying (largely, or entirely semantic) information... whereas HTML is also significantly about cajoling a myriad not 100% compatible devices and software into accidentally doing the right thing against all odds.
As a result, despite the existence of the heavenly ideal of sensibly formatted and standard-compliant HTML markup, the average document is going to be somewhat to moderately messy and difficult or (over multiple documents created by different authors) impossible to automatically parse/convert in a definitively correct way (unlike a well defined semantic XML format like this).
- Ahi
Ps.: Any suggestions, JSWolf, on how to improve my ugly duckling of an ePub file of The Art of War (posted in another thread)? I find the lack of interest therein--particularly in light of the rather greater positive attention the PDFs received--to be odd given the apparent enthusiasm about ePub on this forum. Particularly since I spent more time making the single (and, on my Sony PRS-505, not particularly great looking) ePub, than I did producing the 8 considerably more professional looking custom PDFs.