which format will win?

[frabjous]

What? You detest CSS? But you think (X)HTML is the right base format for ebooks? That's a very odd position to hold.

I like CSS. I think it's one of the things XHTML does right. I guess I'm not sure what the difference is between layout and style, and even if there is one, surely the important thing is the contrast between them on the one hand, and content on the other.

Sure, no Browser is 100% compliant, but IE is in a league by itself, largely because its noncompliance is deliberate.

WYSIWYG editors are fine for writing letters to Grandma. But they really have no purpose for anything created for a wider audience, primarily because they make it impossible to separate form and content, and create modifiable consistency.

[Kris777]

Originally Posted by Zetmolm

Well, fb2 is a format that came out of the Russian readers community, and their efforts have led to a situation where the Russians are far ahead of us in making copyrighted contents available in a way that makes readers, authors, and publishers happy. There are several legal Russian sites where you can read any book you want (in Russian, of course) for free online, or download them for a price of often less than 1 dollar. And all the legal rights and fees arfe taken care of!

Yes, people in Russia don't know the word DRM and many people don't know the word EPUB. All books available in FB2 format without any types of DRM. Websites sell books for less than $1 but if 1 Million people buy this $1 book authors and publishers will have good profit. For many people more easy to spend $1 for eBook than spend some time to find illigal copy.

[kennyc]

I like .txt and think it will win.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

IMO, it was downgraded to an EPUB. I paid for an LRX. If I wanted an EPub, I would have bought an EPub in the first place.

[HarryT]

You still have the .LRX file, do you not? Now you have an ePub as well, as a free extra.

[BillSmithBooks]

The funny thing about the whole DRM argument is how easily DRM can be circumvented by even the most un-nerdy noob:

Use a camera.

Display each page of your ebook, take a picture of each page, set up your ebook as a series of JPEGs, read on any picture viewer.

Not elegant and a little time consuming, but certainly usable.

(I hope posting this "secret" doesn't run afoul of Mobile Read's TOS since it technically is a way to overcome DRM...but it is interesting to note how the thousands (millions?) of dollars spent to develop these sophisticated DRM schemes can be foiled by someone with a $20 disposable digital camera).

[frabjous]

Surely, using screen capture on your computer would be easier than using a camera!

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Surely, using screen capture on your computer would be easier than using a camera!

Yes, of course. I was just thinking about for those people with a Sony, Nook, Kindle, etc who don't have the "read on my desktop" software.

And it was just a "proof of concept" point about how easily the rationale behind DRM can be utterly dismissed.

[Jellby]

It does not help if you download a DRMd file from the darknet

[FireRunner]

In the end I feel formats will become similar to the gaming console industry. You will have XBOX, Playstation, and Wii...all major players. So, there will always be a variety of formats.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by frabjous

What? You detest CSS? But you think (X)HTML is the right base format for ebooks? That's a very odd position to hold.

CSS is not XHTML. Please don't conflate them...it's not even using XML markup, which is puzzling as heck given it's used to modify XML-based...

Anyway, Non-compliance is non-compliance. It's a terribad standard when it's that hard to implement given the amount of effort put into browsers!

I like CSS. I think it's one of the things XHTML does right. I guess I'm not sure what the difference is between layout and style, and even if there is one, surely the important thing is the contrast between them on the one hand, and content on the other.

Well, as you can evidently see by browser non-compliance, the lack of usable WYSIWIG web-building tools and so on, surely your contention falls flat...

WYSIWYG editors are fine for writing letters to Grandma. But they really have no purpose for anything created for a wider audience, primarily because they make it impossible to separate form and content, and create modifiable consistency.

Oh sure, tell the people out there using Word and Excel they're doing it wrong. Please record it so I can laugh at their reactions to you, for that matter.

Websites should be that simple - there were some quite usable WYSIWYG editors which were developing nicely before CSS2 came along and basically made them more trouble than they were worth because of how badly CSS was designed. In a day and age when the web is this important to the lives of so many people, that websites are so hard for the layman to create is a massive, massive outrage!

[charleski]

Originally Posted by frabjous

The entire scientific world disagrees with you.
...
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.

Interesting. I remember coming across many papers in LaTeX in the early-mid 90s (mostly in papers that were heavy with equations, raw postscript was probably a little more popular in general), but those died out as PDF became accepted as a delivery format.

I think it's important to understand the distinction between source and delivery formats. While PDF is rubbish for anyone who needs to edit or modify the document, it's great for delivery since it's so easy to install a reader for it on virtually any platform. PDF's intractability to modification is a distinct advantage for a delivery vehicle - there's no chance of someone accidentally changing an equation and then passing the paper on to someone else.

[angelad]

VHS for the win

[guyanonymous]

Would it be fare to say that...

a) If you want someone to see something in the EXACT layout/format you created it in, use PDF (or Latex?).

b) If you want flexibility in layout/format use something else?

Heck...forget it....let's all go pack to using PCL 5 for all display purposes.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

There won't be "a" standard.

Several formats already co-existed for the last ten years, and this will continue. Honestly, I really don't care which format will become "the" standard, as long as it's possible to buy any eBook I'd like to read and convert it into my favorite format.

I agree. I think the key is that ereaders support a number of formats, rather than just one. Each format has its advantages and disadvantages, and not being locked into a single format is a good thing. I think the current situation with ereader, support for multiple formats, will continue.

When I'm checking out ebook readers, one of the first things I check are the formats it supports. I wouldn't purchase an ebook reader that only supported one format, and would also reject an ereader that didn't support at least one format that I couldn't make myself.

It's the same thing with digital audio players. Although MP3 is the most common format, as far as I know all currently available players support multiple formats. As an example, my own player (a Sony NWZ-A818) supports the following audio formats: MP3, WMA, AAC, and WAV. I doubt that a player that only supported one format would sell very well.