Adequacy of EPUB?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

For a book, you need what DocBook don't have, and many features are not needed for books.

As Toxaris says -- what, exactly, do you claim DocBook doesn't support?

Also, you cannot choose an arbitrarily complex format like HTML/CSS or DocBook, as the clients will not be able to implement it fully. You need a clear, compact and comprehensive format that everyone can implement in its entirety.

The mere numerical quantity of things-that-have-to-be-implemented is not what determines whether a rendering engine can fully implement a spec. And I find the suggestion to be laughable.

How on earth do you think Gecko and Webkit (deliberately not mentioning MS Trident) manage to produce proper support for HTML+CSS?

Also, are you aware that pretty much every Android and iOS ereader app, embeds webkit to do the HTML layout?
Which is, incidentally, probably why they have a better track record for implementing EPUB3.

That is demagogy, again. Every book has the cover artist mentioned in its colophon, along with other copyright holders. The problem is that you need a dedicated person in the library to extract it and put into custom metadata. It would be an obvious decision to include this in format itself to enable machine processing.

I am looking at some books published by the Big 5 Publishers, and they don't mention a thing about the cover artist. (Well, a couple of them do. But most of them don't.)

Well, that was an easy one to disprove.

You cannot use other people's work without attribution, you know.

Of course you can.

You can't use work that other people hold the copyright to, unless doing so is in your contract.
And you certainly don't have to attribute them if you own the copyright by virtue of having purchased the rights.

Occasionally, just... occasionally... people use cover images that weren't downloaded for free from the internet under a CC BY{,-SA,-ND} license.

You need to have some level of structure in your Word file too, to get a hyperlinked TOC required for Kindles and the TOC itself.
Therefore, same methods can be employed to create a semantically structured document.

ToC structure requires a semantic ToC.

Your proposed format wants to perform magnitudes more structure than merely marking out the chapters.

Come back when you have a better comparison.

That's just one method for simple readers. There are readers that can interpret XML formats directly.

So tell me, when is this reader going to finally hit the commercial market?

To make a sidebar, or an illustration caption, with XHTML, you need to implement the HTML layout. Not all readers and devices can do it.
To render a semantic sidebar, you can use any model your reader is working with: you already know what you need to do, you don't need to copy the physical formatting to imitate it.

So... to use XHTML for the purpose, we are dependent on the reader/device to implement the necessary specs?
But of course, if it is all XML, the reader/device does NOT have to implement the necessary XSLT transforms?

I'm afraid you've lost me there. Can you repeat it again, with real ideas?

[Solitaire1]

It seems that including metadata in an ebook is the main issue with EPUB in this thread. Instead of relying on tagging the metadata, why not just include the metadata information as part the ebook itself using the traditional methods (such as a title page, copyright page, dedication page, acknowledgement page, and so on) much like it is done with printed books?

As an example, when I make an ebook as a PDF I don't rely on using my ereader's table of contents function, instead I just insert a table of contents in the ebook itself on page 2 so I can easily return to it at anytime. Of course, it only works because the pages in my PDF ebooks are fixed but it is fairly easy to do. In the same way, why couldn't the metadata just be listed on a page at the beginning of the ebook?

[PeterT]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

In the same way, why couldn't the metadata just be listed on a page at the beginning of the ebook?

Probably because then the reading software would have to parse the page, as opposed to reading it directly from the well formed metadata.

[phillipgessert]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

That is demagogy, again. Every book has the cover artist mentioned in its colophon, along with other copyright holders.

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

You cannot use other people's work without attribution, you know.

I feel like you should slow down and really spend some time with books and how they're made before trying to reinvent them. These two comments are sorta funny.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

It seems that including metadata in an ebook is the main issue with EPUB in this thread. Instead of relying on tagging the metadata, why not just include the metadata information as part the ebook itself using the traditional methods (such as a title page, copyright page, dedication page, acknowledgement page, and so on) much like it is done with printed books?

As an example, when I make an ebook as a PDF I don't rely on using my ereader's table of contents function, instead I just insert a table of contents in the ebook itself on page 2 so I can easily return to it at anytime. Of course, it only works because the pages in my PDF ebooks are fixed but it is fairly easy to do. In the same way, why couldn't the metadata just be listed on a page at the beginning of the ebook?

It could of course be, but then it couldn't be read or catalogued by software. Imagine having 10,000 books in your library, but not being able to tell what any book was without opening it and reading the title page. The whole point of having a standard set of metadata, such as the Dublin Core standard that ePub (and Mobi) use is to allow you to catalogue and search your books.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It could of course be, but then it couldn't be read or catalogued by software. Imagine having 10,000 books in your library, but not being able to tell what any book was without opening it and reading the title page. The whole point of having a standard set of metadata, such as the Dublin Core standard that ePub (and Mobi) use is to allow you to catalogue and search your books.

Actually the original intent was more than this. It was also for the retailer to be able to display the data about the book as well. That is the main reason that there is a summary entry in the metadata which was originally intended to be the description presented by the retailer. I think, today, that this data is provided in a separate document but having it inside the book does have value as well. I remember epub version 1 typically had and used this data. ePub version 1 was used to produce eBookwise, LIT, and MOBI books. It was originally called OEB or Open EBook standard as described in our wiki.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

And those are minority if we talk about non-/fiction books.

No. They aren't. If all you were talking about were fiction titles, you should have said so in the first place. Not that that makes you any more correct, mind you--but, at least, we would have understood that your frame of reference is limited.

For a book, you need what DocBook don't have, and many features are not needed for books.

What, exactly, is it that you think DocBook does not have? How many books, exactly--number, please--have you tried to make with DocBook? I don't use DocBook to make my books, but at least, I've used it. Have you ever used it? Or are you just blowing smoke, as you are about every other assertion you've made?

Also, you cannot choose an arbitrarily complex format like HTML/CSS or DocBook, as the clients will not be able to implement it fully. You need a clear, compact and comprehensive format that everyone can implement in its entirety.

:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROTFL: OMG. You're killing me. "Arbitrarily complex?" Ok, now I understand. You don't make books at all, do you? You think that tagging every element in a book separately, using XML, will somehow be "less complex" than using HTML? Don't think so, kiddo.

That is demagogy, again. Every book has the cover artist mentioned in its colophon, along with other copyright holders. The problem is that you need a dedicated person in the library to extract it and put into custom metadata. It would be an obvious decision to include this in format itself to enable machine processing.

And if we weren't all sure, before, that you have zero experience, this certainly puts paid to any other idea about your level of expertise. I dare you to go to any print library, or, for that matter, open the first 30 books you see, on Amazon, in Kindle format, and tell me exactly how many of them mention their cover designers. Go ahead. I DARE you. For that matter, open the last 20 DTBook, BPH bestsellers on Amazon. See how many of those have cover designer credits. Want me to tell you how many? NONE. I'm boggled that you think that cover design credits are just sitting there, for every book, on the colophon (which most BPHs are not using any longer, EITHER). Or all the OTHER meta about which you keep blathering.

You cannot use other people's work without attribution, you know.

No, really? </sarcasm>

You need to have some level of structure in your Word file too, to get a hyperlinked TOC required for Kindles and the TOC itself.
Therefore, same methods can be employed to create a semantically structured document.

It's a far cry for some writer to figure out how to BOOKMARK their chapter headings (which is how most of them do it), or use a Heading tag for their chapter heads, and automatically building a TOC, versus tagging every single element in their book with things like "colophon" "copyright page" "title page" "half-title page," "parasimple" "parafirstchapter" etc. If they could do that, Padawan, they would be building their own ePUBs. Got that?

That's just one method for simple readers. There are readers that can interpret XML formats directly.

Is that so? Which ones? NAME THEM. If you can't name them, then you're just blowing smoke. As someone else said, put up or shut up.

Basing on screen dimensions and user font preferences. If you need a sidebar to occupy exactly 43% of screen width and have a 1.113 em margin, you are doing that wrong and that is not the kind of markup which is cross-platform and cross-device.
##1 and 3 are not the typical books: there are color photos incompatible with E-Ink screens.

Feel free to see attached. OMG, you're RIGHT! Those are terrible! </sarcasm>

The other have a simple layout: headings, illustrations with captions, unordered lists, inline images, footnotes. Fonts and colors are for user to choose.

Uh-huh. Yeah, y'know, it's funny just how many publishers simply aren't interested in that idea. They want their books to look like their layout, period. They don't mind adjustments made for readability, but no: if they have branding colors, like the workout books, THAT is what they want to be used. Not some Courier interpretation thereof. This comment--this one--is how I know you've never worked with a publisher. Or, for that matter, more than one-two authors. Otherwise, you'd know that most of what you said in this post is pure buncombe. <Am. Slang: "bunkum">

Also, a reader rendering the semantically-defined footnote could take measures not to break the line before its marker.

Izzat so? So...how would your semantically-defined footnote be rendered? Oh, wait--you don't KNOW. You don't know because your PITS format is going to leave all the graphical layout to the READER. So, you don't know whether the footnote would be rendered so as to increase the line-height--or not.

To make a sidebar, or an illustration caption, with XHTML, you need to implement the HTML layout. Not all readers and devices can do it.
To render a semantic sidebar, you can use any model your reader is working with: you already know what you need to do, you don't need to copy the physical formatting to imitate it.

What? I hate to tell you, but your basic idea is, wrap XML tags around everything, doing NO formatting whatsoever, and then throw the baby (the layout) out with the bathwater. You're saying that we'd create a simple XML file, with all those elements tagged, and simply throw it up for purchase, and tough s**t on the person who buys it. It's up to THEM to create or have created, or hope they have on the device, all the styles that they need, for that file.

That's just...utter inexperience. You're reducing books to the equivalent of medical records. To be coded by data-entry clerks. No publisher is going to go for that. Period.

And APPLE certainly won't, nor will Amazon. You don't have any new ideas or even solid grounds for the ideas you have. All of this ground has already been trod, by DocBook, which I strongly suggest you try.

In fact, I recommend you make some actual books. Say, 50 of them. And then come back and talk to us. Right now, you're just wasting everyone's time.


Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And if we weren't all sure, before, that you have zero experience, this certainly puts paid to any other idea about your level of expertise. I dare you to go to any print library, or, for that matter, open the first 30 books you see, on Amazon, in Kindle format, and tell me exactly how many of them mention their cover designers. Go ahead. I DARE you. For that matter, open the last 20 DTBook, BPH bestsellers on Amazon. See how many of those have cover designer credits. Want me to tell you how many? NONE. I'm boggled that you think that cover design credits are just sitting there, for every book, on the colophon (which most BPHs are not using any longer, EITHER). Or all the OTHER meta about which you keep blathering.

Well, Hitch, I really hate to say this to you of all people. But you're wrong.

I actually went through the books on my Kindle (and I have quite the selection, though I didn't check all of them ).
And I can tell you now that there is one book (series), at least, which absolutely does list the cover artist.

The Harry Potter books were designed by Mary GrandPré, as per the copyright page.


Now there you go! One book (series) does it, so obviously, every other book out there does, too!
Or maybe they're all WRONG!
Or something!

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, Hitch, I really hate to say this to you of all people. But you're wrong.

INCONCEIVABLE!

I actually went through the books on my Kindle (and I have quite the selection, though I didn't check all of them ).
And I can tell you now that there is one book (series), at least, which absolutely does list the cover artist.

The Harry Potter books were designed by Mary GrandPré, as per the copyright page.


Now there you go! One book (series) does it, so obviously, every other book out there does, too!
Or maybe they're all WRONG!
Or something!

Aha! I have those too, indeed, I do.

• My copy of P&P: no cover designer, but they DO credit the UK National Portrait Gallery for the engraving of JAusten, that was used on the spine.
• My copy of Bringhurst, 4th Ed.--surely, of all the books, in all the world, that will have--oh. No. No cover designer is listed, even though every font in the book is listed on the colophon, along with credit to their designers/foundries. Ah, Robert, you stab me to the quick, you do! No cover designer credit?

Ye gad! What's the world coming to?

Hitch

[Jellby]

Well, a proper metadata format would have to provide fields for the cover designer, for the author of the photograph the cover is based on, for the creator of the art piece which is photographed, for the museum or gallery that ows or displays the art piece, for the curator who restored its original colors, for the funding agency that gave the grant, not to mention the designers of the fonts used in the cover (the original metal type and the digital version)...

[doubleshuffle]

Don't forget the software used to create the cover, the manufacturer who provided the colours and paper/canvas used to create the original artwork etc. ad infinitum.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by Hitch

What, exactly, is it that you think DocBook does not have?

Poems, letters, scenic directions, something else...

You think that tagging every element in a book separately, using XML, will somehow be "less complex" than using HTML?

You have to "tag them separately" with any format.

open the first 30 books you see, on Amazon, in Kindle format, and tell me exactly how many of them mention their cover designers.

I didn't mentioned cover designers once.
Of the 17 EPUB books found in a random folder, 15 had names of the cover artists.
All books which had 'maps', had the corresponding artist credited.
Six books also credited interior illustration artists.

use a Heading tag for their chapter heads

See, they can use styles. It is just one step further to mark the major semantic elements.

tagging every single element in their book with things like "colophon" "copyright page" "title page" "half-title page," "parasimple" "parafirstchapter"

Why should they do that DocBook markup in books? I have no idea, too.

Is that so? Which ones?

Out of my head, FBReader and CoolReader. There are more of them.

You don't know because your PITS format is going to leave all the graphical layout to the READER. So, you don't know whether the footnote would be rendered so as to increase the line-height--or not.

There is only one party who knows how to display it in the best way: the reader app. Therefore, it is a natural choice to leave it to it.

wrap XML tags around everything, doing NO formatting whatsoever, and then throw the baby (the layout) out with the bathwater.

The thing is, there are formats which do just this, and they work good. With the right set of HTML, it will work great.
Also, you keep ignoring the fact that you can apply your treasured CSS formatting over the semantic layout, too.
Can you at least formulate, what kind of features of that "manual design" of yours cannot be achieved by the bare XML layout? Item by item.

[HarryT]

Sarmat, just who do you imagine is going to create this wonderful ebook format you keep going on about? If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, what is the point of this discussion?

[Toxaris]

I am done, I can do better things with my time. He never gives real answers but just stays in his own troubled mind. If I continue in this thread, I am afraid I would use non appropriate language.

I dared him to put his money where is mouth is. Apparently he is broke and he is full of manure.

[Turtle91]

But this is an entertaining waste of time...

Sarmat, it appears you are unable to properly describe the benefit of your system using words. Perhaps you could create a small example of what you are talking about...a couple paragraphs, title, image, etc. that would show us how your system is better. It really shouldn't take more than a few minutes to create and attach that to a post here...certainly less time than has been fruitlessly spent on this conversation so far.