Skeleton CSS

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

Do you mean what I'm doing with div class="block poem"?

Or p+p, or any CSS for that matter. KF7 is all HTML, all the time.

Hitch

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Or p+p, or any CSS for that matter. KF7 is all HTML, all the time.

Hitch

Is there anything that runs on a PC or an Android tablet that displays KF7? I'm curious to see what my stuff looks like on it.

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

Is there anything that runs on a PC or an Android tablet that displays KF7? I'm curious to see what my stuff looks like on it.

Mobipocket Reader Desktop 6.2 for Windows

(You'll have to wait a couple of seconds for archive.org to retrieve mobireadersetup.msi.)

[JSWolf]

The way to do it is to have the cleanest CSS. You don't want it too complicated or with extra bits that you don't need.

I've seen lots of CSS from commercial eBooks that has lots of extra rubbish in the classes that are being used. If I bother to strip out the rubbish, I end up with pretty good CSS. The class names can still be rubbish. The class names from In Design are not nice and sometimes there are multiple classes used that could be changed to be just one class. But I'm too lazy to do that.

I don't do the P + P as I do like to see <p class="noindent"> so I know what's what by looking as the HTML code. It's amazing how easy it can be to take an ePub that's not nice and make it nice. Now if only I could get paid for it. I'd be happy to take the finished ePub and make it even better. I could make it smaller, better code so less change of causing a glitch. Sometimes these overly bulky CSS files can cause some programs to not work well.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

Is there anything that runs on a PC or an Android tablet that displays KF7? I'm curious to see what my stuff looks like on it.

It's Mobipocket format, not KF7. So if you've seen Mobipocket Code and how it looks, then you've seen what's incorrectly being called KF7.

The Amazon Kindle Publishing Guidelines 2019.1 mentions KF8 (aka Kindle Format 8) but there is no mention of KF7 or Kindle Format 7. Amazon calls it Mobi. ##

Now if anyone can show me on Amazon where KF7 is used, I'll happily stop saying KF7 is incorrect.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

It's Mobipocket format, not KF7. So if you've seen Mobipocket Code and how it looks, then you've seen what's incorrectly being called KF7.

The Amazon Kindle Publishing Guidelines 2019.1 mentions KF8 (aka Kindle Format 8) but there is no mention of KF7 or Kindle Format 7. Amazon calls it Mobi. ##

Now if anyone can show me on Amazon where KF7 is used, I'll happily stop saying KF7 is incorrect.

Not KF--but it was absolutely called Mobi7 by KDP/Amazon. I have the 2012 formatting Guidelines (along with all the others) and it's referred to as Mobi 7 there. Under Section 3, Formatting guidelines, page 10. To wit:

Kindle Format 8 (KF8) is the next generation file format (replacing Mobi 7) for Kindle books and supports HTML 5 and CSS 3.

That's why, if memory serves, we all stopped calling it Format 6 and started calling it 7, right? Does everybody remember that? The arguments on here as to whether the old mobi was 6 or 7? Sheesh.

Hell, it's STILL called MOBI 7 by amazon. That's in the 2019 Guidelines. Do a search in 'em. It's hardly surprising that we all say KF7 instead of "mobi" given the conflation of the terms by Amazon, using "mobi" to mean anything over time. Hell, in the 2019 Guidelines, they still reference .prc. When's the last time anyone here created a prc file?

Wolfie, dear, I know that pedantry is near and dear to your heart, but you GOTTA let that go. You're beyond beating a dead horse. That horse has been dead so long it's petrified now.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Not KF--but it was absolutely called Mobi7 by KDP/Amazon. I have the 2012 formatting Guidelines (along with all the others) and it's referred to as Mobi 7 there. Under Section 3, Formatting guidelines, page 10. To wit:



That's why, if memory serves, we all stopped calling it Format 6 and started calling it 7, right? Does everybody remember that? The arguments on here as to whether the old mobi was 6 or 7? Sheesh.

Hell, it's STILL called MOBI 7 by amazon. That's in the 2019 Guidelines. Do a search in 'em. It's hardly surprising that we all say KF7 instead of "mobi" given the conflation of the terms by Amazon, using "mobi" to mean anything over time. Hell, in the 2019 Guidelines, they still reference .prc. When's the last time anyone here created a prc file?

Wolfie, dear, I know that pedantry is near and dear to your heart, but you GOTTA let that go. You're beyond beating a dead horse. That horse has been dead so long it's petrified now.

Hitch

The horse can be dead for as long as it wants. Mobi means it's a crappy obsolete format that should go away forever. KF7 sounds like it's a more modern format that's OK to have. So I'd rather stick with Mobi so others will know that it's an obsolete format.

Yes,they still call it Mobi 7. But they also say "The file delivered to Amazon should be a Mobi 7 EPUB with self-contained audio and video or a Mobi 7 .prc file with self-contained audio and video." There is no such thing as a Mobi 7 EPUB. I have not ever seen Mobi referred to as KF7. Sure, call it Mobi 7 if you want because that's what Amazon calls is. But KF7 is never referred to by Amazon. KF8 or Kindle Format 8 sure.

KF7 is unofficial and incorrect and I will mention it's wrong when I see it used.

[Doitsu]

@JSWolf Whether you refer to the old MOBI format as KF7 or Mobi7 is beside the point.

lumpynose is looking for an app to test the old MOBI format and Mobipocket Reader Desktop 6.2 for Windows will display the old MOBI format contained in hybrid mobi files generated by KindleGen just fine.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

@JSWolf Whether you refer to the old MOBI format as KF7 or Mobi7 is beside the point.

lumpynose is looking for an app to test the old MOBI format and Mobipocket Reader Desktop 6.2 for Windows will display the old MOBI format contained in hybrid mobi files generated by KindleGen just fine.

Gang:

what about just using an older KP? Previewer (old style) shows KF7/mobi/prc/whatever. I still have it AND use it

Hitch

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Gang:

what about just using an older KP? Previewer (old style) shows KF7/mobi/prc/whatever. I still have it AND use it

Hitch

Forget that I asked and I withdraw that question. I already went down that road the last time Hitch brought up the "Mobi 7" issues. Back then the suggested solution was to use kindleunpack on the dual Mobi, but kindleunpack gave me problems whereupon I realized that I wasn't that interested in seeing how that ancient format looks.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Or p+p, or any CSS for that matter. KF7 is all HTML, all the time.

Hitch

So if Mobi 7 is all HTML does that mean that kindlegen (in my case) is figuring out all of the CSS (precedence, combinators, cascade, etc.) in the epub it's being fed and generates pre-CSS HTML that closely matches as possible what the CSS specified?

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by Doitsu

@JSWolf Whether you refer to the old MOBI format as KF7 or Mobi7 is beside the point.

lumpynose is looking for an app to test the old MOBI format and Mobipocket Reader Desktop 6.2 for Windows will display the old MOBI format contained in hybrid mobi files generated by KindleGen just fine.

Now you've intrigued me; I'll probably waste some time installing and trying that. But hey, I'm retired and time is what I have lots of.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by lumpynose

Now you've intrigued me; I'll probably waste some time installing and trying that. But hey, I'm retired and time is what I have lots of.

Well, there are still many readers out there that read this format. Older Kindles but also other devices that claim to support MOBI format typically can't go beyond 7 and some are at 6.

Dale

[BetterRed]

It's exchanges such as this that leads into posting responses such as this

BR

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

I regard Kindle's as health hazards, so my knowledge is scant.

So far I haven't seen anything to induce me to believe that your knowledge is scant.