why the fuss over epub?

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by thebestjeter

I can't understand why is really impossible that the Kindle Cloud Library cannot support dictionary, but, anyway, that is not enough proof to say that the dictionary support in Mobi is not perfect. Actually, it is, I think.

Original Mobipocket reader on PC supports multiple dictionaries. When you select a word lookup it can give you a choice among multiple entries and even multiple dictionaries. It is important because many inflected wordforms can be interpreted differently and the first match is not always the best one.

Kindle support is limited in this regard. Also when you browse the dictionary itself, it doesn't support inflections at all. Also Kindle does not support lookup for Asian languages and even for Russian.

Probably, these details are outside of the scope of the format. Even using mobipocket dictionary format requires that a reader software implements these features. I used to favor mobipocket on this count but after careful consideration I no longer think that it discredits epub format. After all, dictionary format is simply a list of paired headwords and entries. It is very simple concept and it is the software that has to do most of the job to use it. Of course, we need a commonly accepted format for dictionaries too but it is not a technical issue but the question of an agreement.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by trekchick

You're absolutely right that until ePub defines and standardizes dictionary support, an ePub dictionary will be unportable to other devices for lookups. However, Kindle dictionaries are only usable on Kindle devices/apps, so the end result of being tied to the manufacturer is the same. And, if you'll pardon me for being Kindle-centric in the Kindle forum, Mobipocket dictionaries aren't usable on Kindle without chicanery beyond the scope of this discussion.

Yes, but I think you miss one of the points: You can ADD Kindle dictionaries, what you like, something you can't do at other manufacturers (some of them do support stardict dictionaries, but not the main ones). So, yes, I'm tied to Amazon, but at least Amazon (and mobipocket) offers support to some of my needs.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by karunaji

Original Mobipocket reader on PC supports multiple dictionaries. When you select a word lookup it can give you a choice among multiple entries and even multiple dictionaries. It is important because many inflected wordforms can be interpreted differently and the first match is not always the best one.

Very true, and this is a matter of device firmware. Eg, the Mobi firmware for the Bookeen Cybook range of readers also supports lookup in multiple dictionaries, and returning multiple matches for a lookup. The Kindle could certainly do with improvement in this area.

Also when you browse the dictionary itself, it doesn't support inflections at all.

Mobi dictionaries do support inflections, but it's up to the dictionary creator to ensure that inflected forms are present in the dictionary, of course.

[trekchick]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That sounds interesting - could you give a download URL for them, please? I didn't know that any Oxford dictionaries were freely available.

I have some public domain dictionaries from Project Guttenberg, but nothing from Oxford. Like you, I would enjoy more details.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by karunaji

Original Mobipocket reader on PC supports multiple dictionaries. When you select a word lookup it can give you a choice among multiple entries and even multiple dictionaries. It is important because many inflected wordforms can be interpreted differently and the first match is not always the best one.

Kindle support is limited in this regard. Also when you browse the dictionary itself, it doesn't support inflections at all. Also Kindle does not support lookup for Asian languages and even for Russian.

Probably, these details are outside of the scope of the format.

Yes, my old Opus and Gen3 supported multiple dictionaries in Mobipocket format, so it 's a Kindle software limitation.

Originally Posted by karunaji

Even using mobipocket dictionary format requires that a reader software implements these features. I used to favor mobipocket on this count but after careful consideration I no longer think that it discredits epub format. After all, dictionary format is simply a list of paired headwords and entries. It is very simple concept and it is the software that has to do most of the job to use it. Of course, we need a commonly accepted format for dictionaries too but it is not a technical issue but the question of an agreement.

I think there's a "small" problem here. I'm totally aware of the software doing the lookup (I develope software, even compilers, after all). But that "question of agreement" is the main point: if ePub specifiers are more interested on including video in the new format than specifying a common format for dictionaries, that is the troublesome point. I don't care if it's easy or difficult to implement, you have to have SOMETHING to implement.

Aside of that, I have no problem with ePub or mobipocket in the books I read: they're mainly novel, so I don't lack a lot in any of them. And I don't discredit the format, I only point to its lacks, very important in some cases, quite a lot more important than the poor implementation of blockquotes or lack of right margin.

[thebestjeter]

Originally Posted by karunaji

Original Mobipocket reader on PC supports multiple dictionaries. When you select a word lookup it can give you a choice among multiple entries and even multiple dictionaries. It is important because many inflected wordforms can be interpreted differently and the first match is not always the best one.

Kindle support is limited in this regard. Also when you browse the dictionary itself, it doesn't support inflections at all. Also Kindle does not support lookup for Asian languages and even for Russian.

This statement doesn't make any sense. Kindle software support dictionary inflections when they have to and it is useful: inside the book. If you are typing a word you want to look up, why on earth are you going to type "faster", when you can perfectly type "fast". This is not a problem at all.

Originally Posted by karunaji

Probably, these details are outside of the scope of the format. Even using mobipocket dictionary format requires that a reader software implements these features. I used to favor mobipocket on this count but after careful consideration I no longer think that it discredits epub format. After all, dictionary format is simply a list of paired headwords and entries. It is very simple concept and it is the software that has to do most of the job to use it. Of course, we need a commonly accepted format for dictionaries too but it is not a technical issue but the question of an agreement.

That the point. Since a dictionary standard is so easy to make, why ePub doesn't have one? And, I insist, dictionary standard definition is more important than blockquote, embedded font and so on. I daresay, it's essential.

[thebestjeter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That sounds interesting - could you give a download URL for them, please? I didn't know that any Oxford dictionaries were freely available.

Originally Posted by trekchick

I have some public domain dictionaries from Project Guttenberg, but nothing from Oxford. Like you, I would enjoy more details.

I'm not sure they are in Public Domain (of course, they are not), but I sent you a PM with a link.

[trekchick]

Originally Posted by HarryT

DRM-free Mobipocket dictionaries work just fine on the Kindle.

The essential point here, though, is that book publishers CANNOT publish dictionaries for ePub devices, whereas they can - and do - publish Mobi/Kindle dictionaries. It's a restriction not just for the end-user, but for the publisher, too.

I feel like I'm being nit-picky, but I can't seem to stop myself: There are relatively few ePub dictionaries available for sale, but some are being published. They must be manually searched, almost like a printed dictionary. This is less than ideal since e-book users want their add-on dictionaries to perform like the built-in dictionary. As I've previously stated, this is a benefit that Kindle has over its three closest competitors.

In an attempt to circle back to and expand upon the original point (I might need Tom Tom to help me find it): ePub's lack of specification for dictionary lookup isn't necessarily a barrier to Amazon adopting the format (but not ADEPT - that's just crazy). Using Sony as an example, we see that robust and elegant dictionary lookups are possible. ePub's benefits probably outweigh the difficulty of integrating Kindle dictionaries with ePub. After all, Kindle 3's dictionary supports lookups in PDFs as well as mobi-variants, so part of the work is already done.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by trekchick

In an attempt to circle back to and expand upon the original point (I might need Tom Tom to help me find it): ePub's lack of specification for dictionary lookup isn't necessarily a barrier to Amazon adopting the format (but not ADEPT - that's just crazy). Using Sony as an example, we see that robust and elegant dictionary lookups are possible. ePub's benefits probably outweigh the difficulty of integrating Kindle dictionaries with ePub. After all, Kindle 3's dictionary supports lookups in PDFs as well as mobi-variants, so part of the work is already done.

I think the real barrier is not technical but commercial. Which would be the real benefit for Amazon? If there's no benefit (customer welfare is not a reason, we are talking about an enterprise ), I see no reason to change. And, if your device admits books from other bookstores, I think it's not good for you, so...

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by thebestjeter

This statement doesn't make any sense. Kindle software support dictionary inflections when they have to and it is useful: inside the book. If you are typing a word you want to look up, why on earth are you going to type "faster", when you can perfectly type "fast". This is not a problem at all.

Not all inflections are that regular. For example, if you are looking for a word "mice", you need to see an entry for "mouse". It works fine in Kindle pop-up mode but in dictionary search it doesn't for some reason. Not the most important feature but it would nice to have because some other language have more irregularity than English.

Also multiple entries are in cases when you have an inflection for a regular form and a word in this form with a different meaning. It would be nice for a popup cue to suggest that there are two or more definitions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by karunaji

Also multiple entries are in cases when you have an inflection for a regular form and a word in this form with a different meaning. It would be nice for a popup cue to suggest that there are two or more definitions.

There is a pop-up cue in that situation: when a word has multiple, distinct, meanings, you get a subscript "1" alongside the word in the pop-up, to show that it's the first of several meanings. That's certainly the case in the British English dictionary that I use on the Kindle.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by karunaji

Not all inflections are that regular. For example, if you are looking for a word "mice", you need to see an entry for "mouse". It works fine in Kindle pop-up mode but in dictionary search it doesn't for some reason. Not the most important feature but it would nice to have because some other language have more irregularity than English.

Also multiple entries are in cases when you have an inflection for a regular form and a word in this form with a different meaning. It would be nice for a popup cue to suggest that there are two or more definitions.

I just looked up "mice" in the Kindle version of "The New Oxford American Dictionary" and it has a linked entry to "mouse" in the definition.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There is a pop-up cue in that situation: when a word has multiple, distinct, meanings, you get a subscript "1" alongside the word in the pop-up, to show that it's the first of several meanings. That's certainly the case in the British English dictionary that I use on the Kindle.

Thanks for this advice. It will check how it works with other dictionaries.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by TimW

I just looked up "mice" in the Kindle version of "The New Oxford American Dictionary" and it has a linked entry to "mouse" in the definition.

That is one way how to deal with it. But it won't work for some other languages with a lot of inflections for each word.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by karunaji

Thanks for this advice. It will check how it works with other dictionaries.

Sorry, I should have said a superscript, not a subscript.