bulleted list

[brolny]

1. Create new book.
2. Switch to Book View mode.
3. Insert 4 lines.
4. Change 2 into bulleted list.
5. Switch to Code view mode.

Then you cannot switch back to Book View mode until UL inside P.

[DiapDealer]

I'm not sure how else to say this: don't do any complex editing in Book View. Don't do ANY if you care about the code being generated.

I can't duplicate your issue regardless. I have no problems switching back to Book View after following your steps--even with the unordered list being outside of the block-level p. The only way I can't switch back to Book View is if the ul is manually moved inside the block-level p (which is invalid to begin with).

[brolny]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not sure how else to say this: don't do any complex editing in Book View. Don't do ANY if you care about the code being generated.

It's clear, but button for bulleted list is not enabled in the code view.

[brolny]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I can't duplicate your issue regardless. I have no problems switching back to Book View after following your steps.

You can see there
https://www.dropbox.com/s/amm1z8ij5e...0026.webm?dl=0

[Toxaris]

Wow, that is producing ugly code...

A stong word of advice. Ignore BookView and invest an hour for basic HTML. On the wiki there is a good introduction tutorial from Pable, it should get you up to speed.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by brolny

You can see there
https://www.dropbox.com/s/amm1z8ij5e...0026.webm?dl=0

I'll try again when I get home, but those are literally the same steps I performed without getting the well-formed error. The resulting code even looks identical (if quite ugly, as Toxaris so rightly pointed out). The only other difference was that I highlighted the middle two lines from left-to-right instead of the reverse (and the actual text, of course).

The only way I could get the well-formed error was by moving the UL inside a P element.

[KevinH]

What you are seeing here is that the BV (QtWebkit widget) is allowing the ul tag to be inside a p tag which is not allowed by the current standard. The difference is that some browser engines support it and some do not but officially it is not allowed.

In BV you selected a part of a paragraph and then changed it to be a bulleted list. The QtWebkit widget allowed this change and shows it the way you would expect but it is not valid html (nor valid xhtml) and so when you click to actually see the tags in CodeView, it forces you to properly fix it (either manually or automatically) before it will load it back into the BV widget.

The real issue is that you have selected part of the contents of a tag not knowing that this was the case because BV does not show you the tags, and then changed it to something else. There is no way for Sigil to detect you have not selected an entire paragraph and so it tries to do what you ask. But the internal QtWebkit is being more "forgiving" than what it should.

If you really care about the actual code generated, then only use BookView to correct single text words as you proof read. Everything else should be done in CodeView.

If you do not know anything about how to generate an ordered list using xhtml, then you need to get a good resource and learn how to do that.

If you do NOT care about the generated xhtml, then simply enable automatic correction. That warning about losing data is a bit absurd now that Sigil has moved away from Tidy to Gumbo (as it is autocorrecting parser just like most browsers) as there have been no documented cases of gumbo actually losing anything (yet!).

You appear to turn off autocorrection and then select partial tag structures in BV and using the tools and then complaining when it generates bad code that Sigil could automatically fix for you if you would simply let it.

KevinH

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by KevinH

You appear to turn off autocorrection and then select partial tag structures in BV and using the tools and then complaining when it generates bad code that Sigil could automatically fix for you if you would simply let it.

That would explain why I wasn't getting the error, then (as I leave all auto-source-correction settings enabled).

If you're going to be relying on Book View heavily, I can't think of a good reason to disable either of the autocorrection settings in Sigil's preferences. Disabling them could only be useful to someone who doesn't really need Book View (and even then, not really).

[brolny]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Wow, that is producing ugly code...

A stong word of advice. Ignore BookView...

When I hear, now and again and again - "Do it in the Code View mode! Do not use the Book View mode!", - from the Sigil society, I'm starting to get a little angry. I never sent and will not send any claims, just info about bugs. As a feedback. In order to make Sigil better not only for ebook-devices, but for real ebook-writers too.

For a year we are working with Epubs (making files for students and with students; now in Epub, early in PDF) and Code View mode in the Sigil is not my favorite place to do something. Calibre has much better Code View, IMHO. But we prefer to use Notepad++ with Chrome to edit large pieces of html.

The most visible advantage of the Sigil (for me as for writer) is the Book View mode - unbeloved daughter of programmers, for which a coffin is already prepared by somebody. Even with all its bugs, it saves a lot of times on editing texts after OCR, as the first pass of editing, of course. And also we have RegEx to edit ugly html code after works in the BV.

Nothing is the perfect, but thanks to you, Sigil is the best Epub program for now, on our choice.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by brolny

When I hear, now and again and again - "Do it in the Code View mode! Do not use the Book View mode!", - from the Sigil society, I'm starting to get a little angry. I never sent and will not send any claims, just info about bugs. As a feedback. In order to make Sigil better not only for ebook-devices, but for real ebook-writers too.

Book View is simply not being actively developed at this time. We inherited Book View. The main reason it still exists is because enough people who've learned to work around all its eccentricities, pitfalls and limitations, yell loudly when we mention getting rid of it.

We have no real control over the code that is spit out by these Book View formatting buttons (and no control over what portions of the underlying code users are applying those buttons' functions to). That's the part so few understand. They are what they are. There is no "fix." You either find a way to work around it, or you don't use Book View.

So if you like using Book View, by all means, do so. But at least enable both of the "Mend XHTML Source Code" options in Sigil's preferences if you're going to continue using it. Doing so would have prevented the Well-formed error you were getting in this instance (it still would have made ugly code, but at least it would have been valid).

I know you think you're pointing out "bugs," but all you're really doing is reminding most people why they stopped using Book View a long time ago.

If we could turn those Book View formatting buttons into magic buttons that worked regardless of what a user highlighted, we'd have done so a long time ago.

[Notjohn]

I have an e-book that's being narrated for audio, so I had the challenge of getting it into a Word file. I switched to Book View and simply copied each chapter (there aren't many) into a single Word doc. Having done that, I realized that it was the first time I've used Book View since the Preview Panel came to live with us. For me, it serves no purpose (well, beyond copying/pasting text!). Perhaps there should be a caution against relying on it?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

Perhaps there should be a caution against relying on it?

Seriously? "Don't do that in Book View" is like a mantra around here.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

I have an e-book that's being narrated for audio, so I had the challenge of getting it into a Word file. I switched to Book View and simply copied each chapter (there aren't many) into a single Word doc. Having done that, I realized that it was the first time I've used Book View since the Preview Panel came to live with us. For me, it serves no purpose (well, beyond copying/pasting text!). Perhaps there should be a caution against relying on it?

Well, you could import the ePUB into Word... There are ways without copy/pasting.

[Hitch]

I had a big long post, which basically said the same things that everybody else said, but--I nuked it, (after all, you've already heart it. You'll listen, or you won't) and below is what I think might actually help you:

Originally Posted by brolny

Nothing is the perfect, but thanks to you, Sigil is the best Epub program for now, on our choice.

YES, it IS. Thanks to a whole bunch of unpaid heroes, I'd like to add. However, it's not a word-processor, and it's not really a GUI WYSIWYG ePUB-tool. There are other tools out there (of course, they cost money), like Atlantis Word processor, that would largely do what you want; Jutoh, ditto; Blue...Griffon? Guys? What's the name of that other "ePUB editor" that sort-of works? That's a mere 195 EU. (Don't. It's not worth it. I tried it.) Like some of us, you can and do write your HTML, largely, in something else. I use NoteTabPro, which I prefer. Some folks use Dreamweaver. (Ye Gods). I also use INDD, when making both (print & ePUB).

As Toxaris is too modest to boast, you can download his FABULOUS ePUBTools, and you can then rock&roll in Word, export, view, rock&roll in Word, fix stuff, etc. It's nearly a WYSIWYG ePUB editor, kind of. It would suit you, if you want a WYSIWYG environment. AND, heck, if you need to look at/work on other folks' ePUBs, again, you CAN import them to Word, using his ePUBTools.

In fact, not to be dense, but if you are dealing with AbbyyFineReader (or similar) output, why aren't you proofing it in Word? Abbyy outputs Word, and you could use that, use Tox's tools, which would save you an AMAZING amount of time (I use it often), and you'd be ahead on several fronts. Then output that puppy to HTML, or use Tox's "output HTML" function, in ePUBTools, and you're practically home free. Why not do that?

It's not that the programmers are summarily dismissing you out of hand. (Well, it's kind of like that, to be honest, because Bookview is now more of a hassle than a benefit.) BUT, what you are not understanding is that the program is doing exactly what you are telling it to do. It isn't built to "do what I mean, not what I say." That's a job for Word, and programs like it. It did what you told it to do, in your example. Then, because it's also built to keep you from creating utterly malformed ePUBs, it "insisted" that you fix it, to be proper code. (Hell, at least it didn't give you PSOD [Pink Screen of Death], which is a real horror. Eats your file.)

It's not a bug. It's doing what you told it to do. EXACTLY what you told it to do. As DD pointed out, you need to enable the "fix it as I go" options, to protect yourself from yourself, if you persist in using Bookview. That should solve a chunk of what you're dealing with.

You're using a square peg, round hole approach. I really do think you should try Toxaris' tool, given what you've said. If the reason for using Sigil in BV, in the first place, is because of scanning error corrections, then you are genuinely missing out in not trying that. You can find it in his signature block. I love it. In fact, pretty much everyone around here that is doing that type of work, who's tried it, REALLY likes it. The most perfectionist guy I know uses it.


Hitch

[Notjohn]

There's Atlantis Word Processor, same $40. I gave Atlantis, Jutoh, and Scrivener a run a couple years ago but thought that, like Calibre, they produced awful html. (Or perhaps more accurately, html that looked awful to me.)

Sadly, I wasn't able to make Toxaris's plug-in work with Word 2007. Pity there isn't a forum devoted to it.

I think that with the Preview Panel sitting large on the right side of my screen, Sigil is indeed WYSIWYG. It doesn't do the formatting for us, but it shows the result of the formatting we have done. What more could I ask?