questions about preferences

[Gregg Bell]

I've been exploring what the different functionalities are in Sigil and what's optimal for me (a novelist).

I'm assuming it's good to have the 'Mend XHtML Source code on:' on the Open and Save settings. (see attachment)

And the second arrow. I should have the CSS Level 2.1 filled in?

Lastly, I don't even have EPUB 3 so I guess that third setting is moot and if I ever do have it it should be on CSS Level 3.

And a generic question:

What is the difference between:

Tools>Reformat HTML>Mend and Prettify All HTML Files

and

Tools>Reformat HTML>Mend all HTML Files ?

As I recall one was the old Tidy and the other the Prettify. The Tidy being super powerful and systemic and best to be avoided, but I'm not sure.

Thanks.

[KevinH]

Prettify changes whitespace in an attempt to cleanly indent html code to make it more readable by humans. I typically only use this if I am starting from code that is horrible.

Mend tries to make no whitespace changes and does the absolute minimum to fix broken html.

I personally use mend on open only and that is because gumbo will fix the code so that it is parseable to update links and things when an epub is first opened anyway.


CSS setting is personal preference since epub2 is somewhere between those two CSS specs.



Tidy is no longer part of Sigil because it often ate text.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Prettify changes whitespace in an attempt to cleanly indent html code to make it more readable by humans. I typically only use this if I am starting from code that is horrible.

Mend tries to make no whitespace changes and does the absolute minimum to fix broken html.

I personally use mend on open only and that is because gumbo will fix the code so that it is parseable to update links and things when an epub is first opened anyway.


CSS setting is personal preference since epub2 is somewhere between those two CSS specs.



Tidy is no longer part of Sigil because it often ate text.

Thanks Kevin. I was just testing the Mend vs Mend & Prettify. I've always used the Mend and prettify instead of the Mend. I like it that Mend/Prettify removes the white spaces and straightens things out. But you say Mend does the absolute minimum to fix broken code. Is that a good thing? By using Mend/Prettify am I at a disadvantage to using just Mend?

(And I don't think I have a lot of broken code. I'm just doing my own stuff. Stuff that I write and then turn into an epub.)

You wrote:

I personally use mend on open only and that is because gumbo will fix the code so that it is parseable to update links and things when an epub is first opened anyway.

The above is kind of over my head. What is gumbo? The way you wrote it it sounds like Mend and gumbo are both fixing the code.

Is there any disadvantage to the way I have it (having Mend on Open and Save)?

And I googled and CSS 3 has a bunch of new stuff. But is my CSS going to need anything more than the CSS 2.1?

Spoiler:

@page {
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}

h1, h2, h3, h4 {
text-align: center;
text-indent: 0;
}

blockquote {
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
margin-left: 10%;
margin-right: 10%;
}

.supermargintop {
margin-top: 5em;
}

.margintop {
margin-top: 1em;
}

.right {
text-indent: 0;
text-align: right;
}

.center {
text-indent: 0;
text-align: center;
}

/*This book only CSS*/
p {
text-indent: 1.5em;
margin-top: 0em;
margin-right: 0em;
margin-bottom: 0em;
margin-left: 0em;
text-align: left;
}

p.first {
text-indent: 0;
}

span.smallcaps {
font-size: .9em;
}

p.asterisks {
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
text-indent: 0;
text-align: center;
}

/*Title Page Only CSS*/

.paddingtop {
padding-top: 1em;
}

.bigmargintop {
margin-top: 2em;
}

/*Table of Contents Only CSS*/

.tocone {
text-align: left;
text-indent: -2em;
margin-left: 2em;
}

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I'm assuming it's good to have the 'Mend XHtML Source code on:' on the Open and Save settings. (see attachment)

The settings you have are perfectly fine.

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

What is the difference between:

Tools>Reformat HTML>Mend and Prettify All HTML Files

and

Tools>Reformat HTML>Mend all HTML Files ?

Mend just fixes your code.

Let's say you accidentally forgot the slash in your closing <p>:

<p>This is a sentence.<p>

You can't have two <p>s in a row, so Mend corrects it to valid XHTML:

<p>This is a sentence.</p>
<p>

</p>

What Prettify does is it makes your code look nicer. So let's say you had this:

<body><p>Sentence 1.</p><p>Sentence 2.</p><p>Sentence 3.</p></body>

It changes it into this:

<body>
  <p>Sentence 1.</p>

  <p>Sentence 2.</p>

  <p>Sentence 3.</p>
</body>

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

As I recall one was the old Tidy and the other the Prettify. The Tidy being super powerful and systemic and best to be avoided, but I'm not sure.

"Tidy" was in older versions of Sigil. It was what figured out if your HTML was valid or not, and tried to correct it.

Newer versions of Sigil use "Gumbo" instead. Which also checks if you have correct XHTML, but is much more robust (a lot less likely to make things disappear).

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Is there any disadvantage to the way I have it (having Mend on Open and Save)?

Nope, that's the same exact settings I have.

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

And I googled and CSS 3 has a bunch of new stuff. But is my CSS going to need anything more than the CSS 2.1

Meh. Not really. You do basic books, so your basic CSS is fine.

Using new stuff in CSS3 wouldn't hurt. Devices that can understand CSS3 will show it, and devices that can't understand CSS3 would just act like it doesn't exist.

[KevinH]

Gumbo is Google's robust html parser. It is the "engine" used by both Mend and Mend and Prettify. It replaced Tidy.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

The settings you have are perfectly fine.



Mend just fixes your code.

Let's say you accidentally forgot the slash in your closing <p>:

<p>This is a sentence.<p>

You can't have two <p>s in a row, so Mend corrects it to valid XHTML:

<p>This is a sentence.</p>
<p>

</p>

What Prettify does is it makes your code look nicer. So let's say you had this:

<body><p>Sentence 1.</p><p>Sentence 2.</p><p>Sentence 3.</p></body>

It changes it into this:

<body>
  <p>Sentence 1.</p>

  <p>Sentence 2.</p>

  <p>Sentence 3.</p>
</body>

"Tidy" was in older versions of Sigil. It was what figured out if your HTML was valid or not, and tried to correct it.

Newer versions of Sigil use "Gumbo" instead. Which also checks if you have correct XHTML, but is much more robust (a lot less likely to make things disappear).



Nope, that's the same exact settings I have.



Meh. Not really. You do basic books, so your basic CSS is fine.

Using new stuff in CSS3 wouldn't hurt. Devices that can understand CSS3 will show it, and devices that can't understand CSS3 would just act like it doesn't exist.

Awesome, Tex. Great explanation. Thanks a lot.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Gumbo is Google's robust html parser. It is the "engine" used by both Mend and Mend and Prettify. It replaced Tidy.

Thanks Kevin. And an html parser just makes sure all the html is in good shape (no brackets missing or anything like that)?

[Notjohn]

I like prettify. There was once an essay in the Wall Street Journal about the three? methods of loading a dishwasher. One was "curator," where everything is sorted by type, so the dishwasher trays look, yes!, TIDY. It was a perfect description of my dishwasher trays.

I run Flight Crew to validate, Ctrl-S to save, and then if I have done some hand-coding, I "mend and prettify" or whatever the language is. The page then looks right to me, everything as it should be. Nothing untoward has ever happened, but if it should do, I would simply then Undo.

The longer I use computers (since the fall of 1982, with a CPM WordStar extension on an Olympia electronic typewriter), the more ways I find there are to use a computer, and that no one way will suit everyone.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

I like prettify. There was once an essay in the Wall Street Journal about the three? methods of loading a dishwasher. One was "curator," where everything is sorted by type, so the dishwasher trays look, yes!, TIDY. It was a perfect description of my dishwasher trays.

I run Flight Crew to validate, Ctrl-S to save, and then if I have done some hand-coding, I "mend and prettify" or whatever the language is. The page then looks right to me, everything as it should be. Nothing untoward has ever happened, but if it should do, I would simply then Undo.

The longer I use computers (since the fall of 1982, with a CPM WordStar extension on an Olympia electronic typewriter), the more ways I find there are to use a computer, and that no one way will suit everyone.

Yeah, you're right. I'm always looking for the one right way to do things. Not just "good." "Optimal."

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Yeah, you're right. I'm always looking for the one right way to do things. Not just "good." "Optimal."

The problem is that very seldom is there "one right way". For the most part, it's "that's the way I do it" being mistaken for that elusive one true way. Optimal for you is unlikely to be optimal for me since we seem to use Sigil for very different purposes. Your major use seems to be creating epubs while my major use is fixing the garbage formatting all too often found in commercial epubs. <rant about In Design, Vellum, etc. removed -- please, Mr. Moderator, don't ban me!>

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The problem is that very seldom is there "one right way". For the most part, it's "that's the way I do it" being mistaken for that elusive one true way. Optimal for you is unlikely to be optimal for me since we seem to use Sigil for very different purposes. Your major use seems to be creating epubs while my major use is fixing the garbage formatting all too often found in commercial epubs. <rant about In Design, Vellum, etc. removed -- please, Mr. Moderator, don't ban me!>

Ha ha. I was just in a writers' forum where everybody was raving about Vellum. ('You have to buy a Mac to use it, but oh, it's so good for making ebooks!')

[theducks]

I think there is a difference between easy to use for an author and easy to maintain (the book) code.
What I have run across touching up books to 'my way', the code can be a mess and the author is no wiser.

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by theducks

I think there is a difference between easy to use for an author and easy to maintain (the book) code.
What I have run across touching up books to 'my way', the code can be a mess and the author is no wiser.

For sure, ducks. I have seen some epubs by some pretty big authors and the code is just an absolute mess. I'd think if they saw it they'd freak.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

Ha ha. I was just in a writers' forum where everybody was raving about Vellum. ('You have to buy a Mac to use it, but oh, it's so good for making ebooks!')

It may be good for making ebooks but I suspect 'everybody' has never opened those ebooks in an editor where you can get down and dirty with the code.

Looking at Vellum's output reminds me of one contract decades back where I was to determine the feasibility of updating a budget projection program written in APL. My recommendation was two-fold. One being that it would be cheaper and easier to rewrite the code in a language that not write-only, the other being was to hire a person to ensure the the code was properly documented while it was being written.

For those who are unfamiliar with APL, take a look at the wikipedia APL programming language entry. From my personal experience, the old comment about being able to write a program in one line in APL that would take a page of code in some other language is very true. To read that line of code a month later and figure out what you were doing? That was the real trick.

[Terisa de morgan]

My God! A mathematic programming language!