Adding "folders/categories" in a TOC

[DNSB]

@Hitch: Your posts illustrate a good reason for keeping my ebook work at it's current level instead of trying to make it a full time occupation. I don't depend on the income so I am free to suggest that an obstreperous customer go for a long walk off a short dock ( replace with the cliche of your choice ).

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DNSB

@Hitch: Your posts illustrate a good reason for keeping my ebook work at it's current level instead of trying to make it a full time occupation. I don't depend on the income so I am free to suggest that an obstreperous customer go for a long walk off a short dock ( replace with the cliche of your choice ).

I freely admit, were it me alone, I'd amp up my options trading and reduce the bookmaking and do exactly as you stated. Or give up bookmaking altogether, and build them simply to entertain myself.

But somehow--and really, not sure how this happened--I ended up with a bunch of people here that rely on me to pay their bills, mortgages, eat....man, it's a whole other world.

Hitch

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Hitch

But somehow--and really, not sure how this happened--I ended up with a bunch of people here that rely on me to pay their bills, mortgages, eat....man, it's a whole other world.

Hitch

You should be beatified for that Hitch

I try to relate the situations humorously, to burn them off myself--but I've aged a quarter-century over the last dozen years. The thousandth time you have to tell someone "eBooks don't have pages," your brain melts.

So still in your prime and at the peak of your game.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

You should be beatified for that Hitch

Snort, not hardly.

It's funny, I used to believe, back when I was in RE Development, that I understood stress and pressure, doing half-billion-dollar hotels with absurd deadlines, and all that. In truth, you don't understand either until you own a small business with employees. DAMN. It's one thing to think about doing without yourself, or not being able to pay your bills, etc.; it's completely different to think about letting down other people and their families, that rely on you. It's...it's unbelievable pressure. (If I'd known then....)

So still in your prime and at the peak of your game.

Well, if prime means that not ALL the hair on my head is gray, sure. :-)

Hitch

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Hitch

S
Well, if prime means that not ALL the hair on my head is gray, sure. :-)

Hitch

I am sure you are being entirely too modest.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

I am sure you are being entirely too modest.

(snort), I'm sure I'm not. Wouldst that I were still in my Prime, boyo! But alas, those days have passed. Now I'm more like...well, dry-aged, let's say.

Hitch

[Quoth]

Hair dye is cheap?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Hair dye is cheap?

Oh, boyo, I'm gonna get even with you for THAT one!

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

(snort), I'm sure I'm not. Wouldst that I were still in my Prime, boyo! But alas, those days have passed. Now I'm more like...well, dry-aged, let's say.

Hitch

Aged to perfection.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Detroa

English is (obviously ) not my first language but there are very little ressources and knowledgeable people on the subject in my first language.

Which language?

Originally Posted by Detroa

The reason I wanna do this is simply because a paper version of this book exists and its TOC is separated in three parts, each one listings all the chapters/pages of a certain type while they're not actually grouped in the actual book. That's a pretty common thing for art or cooking books' TOCs here.

Okay, so why not have two TOCs?

1. The HTML TOC + toc.ncx follows the reading order.

Your physical book goes from page 1->999, so this will follow that:

- Recipe #1
- Recipe #2
- Recipe #3

Let's call this one "All Recipes".

2. A "Categories TOC" (or whatever they call it in cookbooks).

This can be a 2nd HTML TOC that you can then sort however you want:

- Beef
-- Recipe #2
- Chicken
-- Recipe #3
- Vegetables
-- Recipe #1

You can stylize this like:

<h2>Beef</h2>
<p class="toc"><a href="../Text/Recipe02.xhtml">Beef Wellington</a></p>

<h2>Chicken</h2>
<p class="toc"><a href="../Text/Recipe03.xhtml">Chicken Parmesan</a></p>

And there's no need to link the headings.

* * *

When the reader wants a specific recipe, they use #1.

If they wanted to see all beef recipes, they hop to the Categories TOC, then go to where they want.

* * *

Side Note: And I agree with JSWolf on TOCs pointing to themselves in the NCX... pretty dumb (and I always get rid of it).

But in this cookbook case, I'd add the Categories TOC in as the first link:

- Categories TOC
- Recipe #1
- Recipe #2
- Recipe #3

This way, the NCX readers can easily hop to the categories if needed.

And in the ebook itself, I'd place the file directly after the frontmatter + TOC:

- titlepage.xhtml
- copyright.xhtml
- TOC.xhtml
- Categories.TOC.xhtml
- Recipe01.xhtml

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Wow! That's one heck of a problematic customer. I would guess that he's the type to set his TV to fill to prevent the black bars.

"Overscan" or "Fill".

Some of the worst settings to ever be devised.

Overscan zooms in and crops the image (losing ~5-15% at least).

Fill stretches up/down + left/right, completely distorting the image (the "oompa loompa" effect).

I explained similar situation back with book covers in "SVG images - why?".

Now with cellphones being all sorts of odd ratios (18.5×9)... some people are cropping/distorting their videos/images even further to "fill the screen". It's a travesty.

And don't get me started on disgusting vertical video... (Made even worse by "converting to widescreen" by filling the black bars with complete gibberish! The absolute worst of all worlds!!!)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

"Overscan" or "Fill".

Some of the worst settings to ever be devised.

Overscan zooms in and crops the image (losing ~5-15% at least).

Fill stretches up/down + left/right, completely distorting the image (the "oompa loompa" effect).

I explained similar situation back with book covers in "SVG images - why?".

Now with cellphones being all sorts of odd ratios (18.5×9)... some people are cropping/distorting their videos/images even further to "fill the screen". It's a travesty.

And don't get me started on disgusting vertical video... (Made even worse by "converting to widescreen" by filling the black bars with complete gibberish! The absolute worst of all worlds!!!)

I really dislike when you get the out of focus bits of the picture instead of the black bars for a 4:3 picture. I also cannot stand fill. I want the black bars to keep the aspect ratio correct. I never did like when a movie was cropped to fit the screen. I'm glad that most movies I watch on TV are in the proper aspect ratio.

As for cellphone video. Shoot it landscape unless there's a reason to shoot portrait. Most portrait cellphone video I've seen could have easily been shot landscape.

[Quoth]

have vertical phone users never used a handheld nintendo?
Why does the phone sw even permit it? Unlike portrait still images there is no valid reason for portrait video.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Quoth

have vertical phone users never used a handheld nintendo?
Why does the phone sw even permit it? Unlike portrait still images there is no valid reason for portrait video.

I dunno, but Gods Above, that's all you see. I watched a cute video, just yesterday, of some cat that likes to roll down the stairs (yes, yes, I surely know how to productively spend my days....), and it was all in portrait, for some unfathomable reason, when the steps being videoed--and the cat--would have both been far better in landscape.

I mean...WHY?

Hitch

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I dunno, but Gods Above, that's all you see. I watched a cute video, just yesterday, of some cat that likes to roll down the stairs (

Somehow I find ones of rooks skiing more interesting.
I was browsing art by an Albrecht Anker, d. 1910, and he seemed also to be captivated by kittens and cats. I believe the ancient Egyptians started it. Cat worship, not vertical video. We've only had decent video since about 1935, the Baird stuff was a dead end copy of Victorian mechanicals, though his film camera to nearly live TV was amazing, and also landscape mode.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Somehow I find ones of rooks skiing more interesting.
I was browsing art by an Albrecht Anker, d. 1910, and he seemed also to be captivated by kittens and cats. I believe the ancient Egyptians started it. Cat worship, not vertical video. We've only had decent video since about 1935, the Baird stuff was a dead end copy of Victorian mechanicals, though his film camera to nearly live TV was amazing, and also landscape mode.

I'll have to give those a go. I severely limit my video-time. Otherwise...you know. Rabbit-hole, meet wasted time. It's far, far too easy to start watching cute or funny or hell, even informative videos and go straight to hell.

I believe I'm helped in this because I don't really do the "smartphone thing." I never developed the habit (thank Odin) because they didn't work here, at my newer home, happily; we're surrounded by mountains or high-ground on all 4 sides, so our physical home--the 4 walls--is a dead spot. When smartphones were really taking off, at the end of the aughts through now, mine was a paperweight, used only when I left to go shopping or whatever. (As I have my office here). And as I loathe social media...meh. I spend quite enough time in front of screens, anyway.

Hitch