Next chapter in the saga of poor ebook formatting

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The copyright page screen shot I've attached has a version number and it has been updated at least once.

This v3.1 is not the version of the book. It's the version of the formatting system. I have *many* books that all have v3.1 or v3.1-r1 in them. All Wizards of the Coast, and all newer Del Rey books for starters, on top of my head.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

This v3.1 is not the version of the book. It's the version of the formatting system. I have *many* books that all have v3.1 or v3.1-r1 in them. All Wizards of the Coast, and all newer Del Rey books for starters, on top of my head.

I have seen multiple copies of the same eBook with different version numbers such as v3.0, v3.0_r1, v3.0_r2 and then v3.0, v3.1. So yes it is a version number as it does get increased when a new version is released in place of an older version.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have seen multiple copies of the same eBook with different version numbers such as v3.0, v3.0_r1, v3.0_r2 and then v3.0, v3.1. So yes it is a version number as it does get increased when a new version is released in place of an older version.

Odd that there never seems to be a 1.x, 2.3, or 4.x. Always 3.x

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have seen multiple copies of the same eBook with different version numbers such as v3.0, v3.0_r1, v3.0_r2 and then v3.0, v3.1. So yes it is a version number as it does get increased when a new version is released in place of an older version.

It is very well possible that a book's release has been recompiled using a new version of the formatting system. I've often encountered errors stylesheets of official books, such as missing semicolons, or non-legal values. Recompiling the book using a new formatter version would fix that.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Odd that there never seems to be a 1.x, 2.3, or 4.x. Always 3.x

Indeed. The only versions I have ever seen are v3.0, v3.1, v3.1_r1 and v3.1_r2. The overwhelming majority (many, if not all, Wizards of the Coast, Del Rey, Ballantine and Random House books I have, for starters) are v3.1.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Odd that there never seems to be a 1.x, 2.3, or 4.x. Always 3.x

Version 1 is the author's version.

Version 2 is the edited version, basically for physical book production.

Version 3 is the ebook version.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murg

Version 1 is the author's version.

Version 2 is the edited version, basically for physical book production.

Version 3 is the ebook version.

I'm assuming that's a guess. If not, some documentation would be nice.

[murg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm assuming that's a guess. If not, some documentation would be nice.

Completely a guess.

Version 4 is the screen play.

Version 5 is the movie/TV show.

[murg]

Version 6 is the remake...

[DiapDealer]

.5 is the reboot?

[Solitaire1]

Continuing...

Version 7 is the reboot of the reboot because the original reboot didn't work.

Version 8 is the complete restart of everything after the reboot of the reboot of the reboot left things so complicated and confusing that it's easier to just start over returning us back to....

Version 1 (shades of the song "In The Year 2525")

[murg]

Version 2 - The Comic Book

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'd much rather have html that is formatted/styled with idiotic, terrible css than to have html littered with empty paragraphs for margin-(toplbottom) and inline styling. At least the former can be fixed relatively easily/quickly. It's usually easier to scrap the latter and start from scratch.

I think it depends on how the tagging is done. Part of the problem with HTML is that people are trying to get it to do things that it wasn't designed to do (such as having no blank lines between the paragraphs and having a first-line paragraph indent). What CSS is supposed to do is provide document formatting control that HTML does not.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

What CSS is supposed to do is provide document formatting control that HTML does not.

Not at all. The vast amount of CSS formatting could be done with inline html attributes alone. What External stylesheets are supposed to do is make it easy and quick to maintain/change the formatting of properly/carefully constructed, semantically-correct html documents.

That people (or automated tools) don't create properly/carefully constructed, semantically-correct html that can be easily maintained/changed by modifying a single stylesheet is hardly the fault of CSS.

Tag soup is tag soup. The fault is with those who don't know how to do things right--not with the tools at their disposal. Without CSS, books with garbage formatting would still be being created left and right. They'd just be ten-times harder to fix by someone who does know what they're doing, is all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not at all. The vast amount of CSS formatting could be done with inline html attributes alone. What External stylesheets are supposed to do is make it easy and quick to maintain/change the formatting of properly/carefully constructed, semantically-correct html documents.

Precisely. Its primary purpose is to separate the formatting from the content, so that formatting can be changed without having to edit content, and vice versa.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. Its primary purpose is to separate the formatting from the content, so that formatting can be changed without having to edit content, and vice versa.

And now we're back to the top of the circle.

But what I'm seeing in ebooks is not the ability to easily change the formatting by changing the CSS, to make changes to the formatting you'd have to make serious and complex changes to the CSS.

The concerns aren't about the role of CSS, or what it is good for. The concerns is that content attributes are being delineated in the CSS and not the HTML.