epubcheck, any software can pass its validiation check?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Well it should not only warn about problems with ADE. For example, empty <pre> elements are not rendered correctly in webkit based viewers and stanza can't handle an epub that has files with the same filename in different directories.

Of course, Stanza has so many problems that it's probably not worth supporting at all.

We get to blame Amazon on that for buying Stanza and stopping work on it.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I do think Adobe should make it part of the contract that if they use ADE, that it has to be updated so we are not stuck with old ADE when new ADE has bug fixes and other enhancements. Sure, the new ADE supports IDPF font handling. But if a number of Readers do not, then what good is it?

If Adobe were willing to foot the bill for creating and supporting any such upgrades, that might happen. But if they're going to force updates, I think we'd instead see device makers rolling their own engines - which is Not A Good Thing.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We get to blame Amazon on that for buying Stanza and stopping work on it.

The last release was in December 2009, eight months after the acquisition. If they stopped all work on Stanza, they certainly took their time about it...

[charleski]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

My objection to epubcheck is that it gives the impression that using it means your epub is actually guaranteed to work on anything

Well, with respect Kovid, where does it give that impression? Anyone who is capable of thinking, 'My book passes a number of elementary compliance checks, therefore there's nothing wrong with it,' needs to go back to school and learn basic logic.

There may well be people in the publishing trade who suffer from such a delusion, but you can't blame epubcheck for the fact that some of the people using it are fools.

Originally Posted by ATimson

If Adobe were willing to foot the bill for creating and supporting any such upgrades, that might happen. But if they're going to force updates, I think we'd instead see device makers rolling their own engines - which is Not A Good Thing.

That's not going to happen for a variety of reasons, not least of which the legal issues that would surround a 3rd party trying to re-engineer Adobe's DRM decryption. The principal problem is that manufacturers of embedded devices tend not to budget for ongoing support costs - once the box is out the door they turn their attention to the next device because they make money by shifting boxes.

I had hoped that in the wake of Sony's (rather expensive) ePub upgrade program for the PRS500 they would release much cheaper firmware upgrades for the 505-700 as well to keep them up-to-date. So far nothing, but we live in hope.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by charleski

That's not going to happen for a variety of reasons, not least of which the legal issues that would surround a 3rd party trying to re-engineer Adobe's DRM decryption.

My thinking was that they'd roll their own encryption, rather than reverse-engineer Adobe's, hence it being Not A Good Thing (for me, at least ).

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by charleski

I had hoped that in the wake of Sony's (rather expensive) ePub upgrade program for the PRS500 they would release much cheaper firmware upgrades for the 505-700 as well to keep them up-to-date. So far nothing, but we live in hope.

Actually it was quite the opposite. Sony released old downlevel versions on new products.

Dale

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ATimson

If Adobe were willing to foot the bill for creating and supporting any such upgrades, that might happen. But if they're going to force updates, I think we'd instead see device makers rolling their own engines - which is Not A Good Thing.

But because of Sony, we have to have ePub that has to work on their readers. We don't get to use new features or fixed bugs as we have to now dgo with the lowest common denominator which is ADE on the Sony Reader 300, 500, 505, 600, & 700. So do you think it's a good thing to allow Sony to keep ePub stagnant for everyone? It's not just for Sony users that it needs to be updated. It's for any user of ADE.

So let's say that Adobe fixed ADE so it's 100% compliant and has no bugs. Do we want to not take advantage of that because some company doesn't care about updating the ADE on their reader?

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I do think Adobe should make it part of the contract that if they use ADE, that it has to be updated

Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure Adobe charges them for the updates. I know I would.

So no, I doubt Sony can get it for free. And they made a business decision not to pay for the updates (actually we don't have a clue what they did/are planning to do, we're all just guessing).

[charleski]

Originally Posted by Valloric

Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure Adobe charges them for the updates. I know I would.

Well, that depends on what Adobe's game-plan is. With Apple poised in the wings ready to snatch the ePub market away from them, I'd have thought Adobe would be eager to get its fixes out there to avoid embarrassing comparisons.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by charleski

Well, that depends on what Adobe's game-plan is. With Apple poised in the wings ready to snatch the ePub market away from them, I'd have thought Adobe would be eager to get its fixes out there to avoid embarrassing comparisons.

Actually, unless publishers make separate ePub for Apple, they'll still have to pander to the lowest common denominator and right now, that may be Sony. So no matter how good iBook is or txtr, they will be limited by Sony.

So yes, it's in everyone's best interests to get the reader makers to UPGRADE.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So let's say that Adobe fixed ADE so it's 100% compliant and has no bugs. Do we want to not take advantage of that because some company doesn't care about updating the ADE on their reader?

It would be nice if that happened. But I think it's more likely that reader companies would take their toys, go home, and roll their own reader software & DRM scheme. Instead of a low common denominator, you'd have no common denominator.

Maybe I'm just being too pessimistic. *shrug*

[charleski]

Originally Posted by ATimson

It would be niceI think it's more likely that reader companies would take their toys, go home, and roll their own reader software & DRM scheme.

This would end up costing them about as much as it would to license ADE (unless Chinese programmers work for free) and leave them trying to sell a device which wouldn't work with any of the current epub bookstores or libraries. Sounds like a recipe for going bankrupt pretty fast.

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by charleski

This would end up costing them about as much as it would to license ADE (unless Chinese programmers work for free) and leave them trying to sell a device which wouldn't work with any of the current epub bookstores or libraries. Sounds like a recipe for going bankrupt pretty fast.

It might cost them as much for the first device. It'd be cheaper than footing the bill for fixing Adobe's problems in the long run.

Besides, being completely incompatible with everybody else seems to be working for Amazon.

[odt2epub]

I'm quite a novice here, but I think some of the "veterans" should drop their arrogant EpubCheck-bashing tone which is not backed by any logical arguments.

Blaming EpubCheck because some of the readers do not display ePub files even though they validates makes no sense. Someone noticed quite well -- what gives you the impression, that the first thing is the cause of the second? That is like blaming W3C HTML validator because IE6 is a crappy browser. Do you validate your (X)HTML and deploy it without even checking it in different browsers?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by odt2epub

I'm quite a novice here, but I think some of the "veterans" should drop their arrogant EpubCheck-bashing tone which is not backed by any logical arguments.

Sigh, learn how to read, then learn how to think, and when you've achieved all that, return.