which format will win?

[nick_]

Originally Posted by frabjous

I can use the same LaTeX source to create an A4 sized document and an iPhone-sized document . In fact, I have. (See link above.)

I just saw that you have created ... SIX different documents for different devices!!!

Exactly my point!

And why six documents and not ten? Or 20?

We need a format with just one document, not multiple.

Latex and pdf were created for printed paper, not for screens. Sure, there are people who learned to use these formats and they don't want to learn anything else. This does not change the fact that those are printed paper formats. Tex and Latex are around for 30 years and they are marginal formats at best. They are not going to get more popular in the future, they will slowly disappear.


(The topic is: which format will win?)

[DawnFalcon]

More to the point, XML-based standards are being used across many different industries, and teaching someone TeX-based rather than XML-based markup is an extremely poor usage of their time.

[nick_]

Originally Posted by frabjous

And LaTeX can use special packages.

Latex can use many packages.

Unfortunately, the handicapped people cannot!

The author has to use the Latex packages anticipating the handicapped person's needs. As an author, have you ever done it?

[nick_]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

More to the point, XML-based standards are being used across many different industries, and teaching someone TeX-based rather than XML-based markup is an extremely poor usage of their time.

Definitely.

However, there is also the point that Tex was created with the goal of producing something that can be printed. It is very precise and capable for this.

It was not created for screens that can very widely in sizes and pixels. It is not the right tool to handle those. That's why it is not used by the vast majority of people.

[guyanonymous]

I have a saying I use to describe situations like this...

Adapting it may lead to, "Using PDF/Latex for multi-sized output devices is like using a butter knife for surgery. It can do the job, but the end result leaves a lot to be desired, and can be kinda messy."

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by frabjous

But the whitespace usage will become more inconsistent if I do that, hence, in actual circumstances that matter, it won't look as nice.



It is an issue if I want them and can't get them. You said that your ePub looked better than my PDF. I was just pointing out ways in which it looked worse.



But the point was ePub isn't capable of doing it right now. I do think it will be in the future, so the problem is not with the format in particular but the renderer.



No. What this shows is that ePub is a good choice for distribution, not that it is a good choice on your reader.

The only point of reflowing is to be able to get the font, font-size, etc., and other layout features you prefer from the same source. You can take that source and create a PDF that has all the desired features you wish, plus additional features that are impossible display on an ePub on most devices. . Once the PDF already has your preferred layout, what would be the point of reflow?

So, again, my conclusion is that I'd rather acquire ePub than PDF, but I'd rather read PDF than ePub right now. (Of course, I'd really rather be given LaTeX source, but HTML-based source, like that found in ePub, is almost as good.) So again, my conclusion is that PDF is currently better for reading than ePub.

The ePub did look better then the PDF. No question about it. Also, the PDF is a fixed size. So depending on what size it was made for, it can look not good on a lot of readers. The ePub will look good on different readers screen and size not an issue. PDF means you have no real choice in how it looks. Once it's done, it's done. If I want a larger font, I can have it with ePub. PDF, nope.

Now if I want to make a PDF that will look nice on my Sony Reader, I can do that. But if I give that same PDF to someone that has a Kindle DX, it won't look nice.

You don't get it. PDF is fixed. Sure you can have more typographic control when making it, but you have to make many many different versions to fit all sorts of screen sizes. It's not worth the hassle.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

Maybe you missed my previous posts? I didn't purchase an epub ebook, I purchased an LRX ebook.

Yes, you purchased an LRX eBook and it's been upgraded to ePub. So what's the problem?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Well, the claim was there was no uncrackable DRM. Getting round it in other ways isn't cracking

Actually the claim was there is no DRM that can't be broken.

Broken is a term generally accepted to mean circumvented in any way.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[frabjous]

Originally Posted by nick_

I just saw that you have created ... SIX different documents for different devices!!!

Exactly my point!

And why six documents and not ten? Or 20?

Those were just wrappers that called the core document. Did you look at their size? It would be more like creating six different CSS files. Every single word of the actual book is in the file imp-core.tex and nowhere else. (So much for the impossibility of separating form and content!)

If I had wanted to use one document, it would have been trivial to do it with the ifthen package instead. I was new at LaTeX when I did that, so I did it a different way.

is an ePub many documents and not one because if I unzip it, there will be a lot of different files in there? Counting files is not what's important. I only edited the book once. That's what's important. Creating those wrapper files could even be automated with a GUI giving the reader a choice of fonts and font sizes and page sizes and header/footer styles, etc. That's pretty much all they contain.

Latex and pdf were created for printed paper, not for screens. Sure, there are people who learned to use these formats and they don't want to learn anything else. This does not change the fact that those are printed paper formats. Tex and Latex are around for 30 years and they are marginal formats at best.

The entire scientific world disagrees with you.

And LaTeX is less than 20 years old. In fact, it's no older than HTML is. TeX is older, but that should be encouraging, since it shows that the core typesetting algorithms (which are the important thing here, not the markup differences) are not so resource intensive that portable devices can't handle them... after all if computers from the early 80s could...

They are not going to get more popular in the future, they will slowly disappear.

The popularity of LaTeX has skyrocketed in the past couple years. It's very noticeable in my discipline. No one had heard of it five years ago. Now, lots of people are using it.

(The topic is: which format will win?)

Ugh. I have already predicted that XHTML/CSS will win the ebook war. Read my posts! My point was about hoping that we get as good a quality of a renderer for it as we have for LaTeX, and that, until such a time, there is reason to prefer PDF.

[frabjous]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The ePub did look better then the PDF. No question about it.

I questioned it, and listed several ways in which it looked worse. You haven't responded to those points. On the other hand, you've given no reasons why it looks better. The example is also completely irrelevant, since the vast majority of ePub devices cannot handle both MathML and SVG. (Actually, all of them on portable devices are in this boat as far as I know.)

Also, the PDF is a fixed size. So depending on what size it was made for, it can look not good on a lot of readers. The ePub will look good on different readers screen and size not an issue. PDF means you have no real choice in how it looks. Once it's done, it's done. If I want a larger font, I can have it with ePub. PDF, nope.

I have never advocated distributing or selling only PDFs. My point was that it currently makes sense to convert documents to PDF so you can use your own font and screen size but STILL have good typography, at least until such a time as the quality of ePub rendering improves.

Now if I want to make a PDF that will look nice on my Sony Reader, I can do that. But if I give that same PDF to someone that has a Kindle DX, it won't look nice.

Agreed. I've never said otherwise. But you could give them the source file form which you made the PDF, and they could make their own.

You don't get it. PDF is fixed. Sure you can have more typographic control when making it, but you have to make many many different versions to fit all sorts of screen sizes. It's not worth the hassle.

How much hassle do you think it is? Once you decide on your own favorite font size and screen size, it could be done with a single button click.

As noted, I'm using the same source to generate 6 different PDFs, so you don't have to create many many versions. I could use it for indefinitely many others. The claim is just false.

[frabjous]

Originally Posted by nick_

Latex can use many packages.

Unfortunately, the handicapped people cannot!

The author has to use the Latex packages anticipating the handicapped person's needs. As an author, have you ever done it?

No, you're mistaken. If the system were on the device, it could add the package at the request of the user. The simplest one-line sed script could handle such a task. (And no, the user wouldn't have to know anything about the coding thereof.)

More to the point, XML-based standards are being used across many different industries, and teaching someone TeX-based rather than XML-based markup is an extremely poor usage of their time.

I actually agree with this, and it's the reason I do think XML-based mark-up will win the day at the end. But I have not been arguing in favor of one mark-up over another. I've been advocating in favor of better typography. I've even pointed out that there is already ways of getting kinda decent typography from xhtml source using, e.g., Prince XML. (But oh no, it creates a PDF! The dreaded PDF!)

[frabjous]

Originally Posted by nick_

Definitely.

However, there is also the point that Tex was created with the goal of producing something that can be printed. It is very precise and capable for this.

It was not created for screens that can very widely in sizes and pixels. It is not the right tool to handle those. That's why it is not used by the vast majority of people.

This is all true too, but it's actually changed quite a lot in recent years, and could be made to adapt more. One way I'd like to see it adapted is to see it be modified to make XHTML mark-up (it actually already can handle HTML with certain packages, but not all XHTML), but still retain its advanced typography algorithms for layout, etc. Probably a wrapper could be made to have LaTeX take ePubs as input. (In fact, I know next to nothing about programming, and I think I could write such a program in a manner of weeks if I actually had leave from work.)

Or I have no problem with something new being created to render XHTML source well, but my point is that since something with decent typography on the fly already exists, why shouldn't we demand something at least as good?

(If it can handle different page sizes, it can handle different screen sizes, however. You're making WAY too much of that. Indeed, it has a microtypography package especially designed for cramped quarters. What does (X)HTML have?)

And as for "pixels" (I assume you mean resolution, unless you just meant size again redundantly), I'm not aware of any browser or other software that displays (X)HTML source differently depending on the resolution of the screen it appears on--only the size measured in pixels (which LaTeX does just as well).

[guyanonymous]

Frabjous - are you familiar with the A List Apart website? (http://www.alistapart.com/)

They spend a great deal of time addressing the very issues you're bringing up - especially the hoops people jump through to achieve decent typography in different formats/environs (pdf/css/etc, web/mobile/print). They have some great documents both philosophical and technical on a wide range of issues centered around typography, accessibility, and standardization.

[frabjous]

No, but it looks like a worthwhile resource. Thanks for the link.

Speaking of hoops though... my disappointment with ePub rendering compared to PDF is nothing compared to the fury I have for Microsoft and the hoops they put anyone through who wants to create a decent looking website, thanks to with their deliberate noncompliance with W3C CSS standards in IE, and their insistence on the embeddability of .eot fonts only. Ugh!

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by frabjous

deliberate noncompliance with W3C CSS standards in IE

None of the major browsers support CSS2.1 properly. (Amaya is the only browser which does, actually - and it's mostly an editor!)

I absolutely detest CSS because it's a poor and clumsy smash-together of layout and style elements which is clumsy and has actually lead to less usable WYSIWYG web editors, locking many people out of website development!