.ePUB extension should be reserved for non-DRM eBooks

[kovidgoyal]

I prefer .depub for DRMed EPUB as it can also stand for de-published

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I prefer .depub for DRMed EPUB as it can also stand for de-published

To make the object oriented paradigm work you actually need separate extensions for each form of DRM since a different program needs to be launched to read it.

Dale

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

To make the object oriented paradigm work you actually need separate extensions for each form of DRM since a different program needs to be launched to read it.

Yep. The extensions are looking to be irritatingly long, though...

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Yep. The extensions are looking to be irritatingly long, though...

One more letter will cover all the DRM formats available today I think.

Dale

[Barcey]

I think that the IDPF should state that if you add DRM the file extension must be .!epub

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

To make the object oriented paradigm work you actually need separate extensions for each form of DRM since a different program needs to be launched to read it.

Not necessarily - you could just as well provide a single header-element that specifies the type of DRM used. Then you would have to start an interpreter (read header) which starts the corresponding DRM-reader.
But I agree that different file extensions would be better (can you imagine the amount of support-requests resulting from it otherwise?)

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Not necessarily - you could just as well provide a single header-element that specifies the type of DRM used. Then you would have to start an interpreter (read header) which starts the corresponding DRM-reader.
But I agree that different file extensions would be better (can you imagine the amount of support-requests resulting from it otherwise?)

You could certainly design Object oriented differently such as was done on the Palm (embedded header) or Mac (separate resource file) but for windows it works the way it works depending totally on the file extension. I am concerned about the user and support requests and disappointments are a major part of the reason I am concerned.

Dale

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

You could certainly design Object oriented differently such as was done on the Palm (embedded header) or Mac (separate resource file) but for windows it works the way it works depending totally on the file extension. I am concerned about the user and support requests and disappointments are a major part of the reason I am concerned.

I know what you mean and I (totally) support your position - I just wanted to state that different file types with the same extension are possible (lets take different versions of PDF or DOC as examples)

[=X=]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I believe that Adobe should not use the ePUB extension for eBooks that have DRM applied. They can do what they want with PDF but ePUB is not their format and they have no right to take it over with ADE based DRM.

Interesting point. I do agree with you that there is a problem and also some confusion.

However I feel the group to blame is not Adobe but IDPF. They are responsible for creating this format and did not do a thorough job.

It was the responsibility of the iDPF:
1- Create a universal ePUB logo.
2- Create a universal DRM solution.
3- Take into account devices with small memory footprints.
4- Create a certifiable ePUB format.

especially if they are claiming its a one size fits all format.

This way it would be clear to any person buying an eBook or buying an eBook Reader that if it sported the ePUB logo it would work.

Right now things are not so bad because Adobe is the only ePUB DRM in town. But enter another company that throws on another DRM solution and now we will have a huge headache on our hands.

=X=

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by =X=

However I feel the group to blame is not Adobe but IDPF. They are responsible for creating this format and did not do a thorough job.

We should blame both, IDPF for making some doubtful decisions when developing the ePub-standard and Adobe for delivering only a incomplete (and partially incompatible) implementation of that standard.

Originally Posted by =X=

It was the responsibility of the iDPF:
1- Create a universal ePUB logo.
2- Create a universal DRM solution.
3- Take into account devices with small memory footprints.
4- Create a certifiable ePUB format.

1. Agreed.
2. If they would do, they would side with the Pro-DRM-faction. This might be just too "politically charged" for them.
3. They did indeed, but made some doubtful decisions (eg. to include SVG support)
4. What did you mean with "certifiable"? That ePub should become a certified standard according to another international organization for standardization (ISO, IETF, ..) or do you mean that IDPF should launch a public certification process?

[Barcey]

Unfortunately when I load at the Board of Directors for IDPF I don't see this getting fixed.

http://www.idpf.org/about/boardofdirectors.htm

Open Standards are great for the publishers and the consumers. If you allow it to be encrypted with proprietary DRM and still allow it to be marketed as an open standard it no longer meets the consumer requirements of interoperability. This is just going to lead to upset customers. It's at best ill advised and at worst fraud.

IMHO EPUB encrypted with ADEPT is Adobe Digital Editions, it's not EPUB.

[Andybaby]

doesn't part of the standard call for it to be able to be converted into other formats?
If DRM epubs dont allow for this, so then they are not epubs.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

doesn't part of the standard call for it to be able to be converted into other formats?

Afaik no, even if many interpret the written purposes within the OPS, OCF and OEB specification documents that way.

[wallcraft]

This makes perfect sense: .epub for DRM-free, .epuba for Adobe DRM, .epube for eReader DRM, etcetera. It would be in FictionWise's interest to use .epube (say) because that reduces the confusion over a 2nd DRM scheme. They also have gone through this in spades with .pdb. The problem is that Adobe has already "squatted" on .epub for ePub with Adobe DRM.

One approach would be to somehow get Adobe to stop using .epub for ePubs with Adobe DRM. Or we could standardize on .epubf (say) for DRM-free ePub. I was concerned that Adobe Digital Editions would not accept this, but the Windows version does not care what the extension is. However, you currently can't add .epubf files to the ADE library.

[JSWolf]

Do you really want to see a word such as epube for the form,at of an eBook? Say it out loud to yourself. Personally, I think it's rather inappropriate. The easiest solution is to get Fictionwise to drop the nonsense about adding yet another DRM scheme to ePub.