erroneous content.opf

[rubeus]

-----

[Toxaris]

You have to be very careful changing the opf, just because of this reason. What I sometimes do, is make a copy of the opf and paste it in Notepad++ first. That way I continue to have a starting ground.
That being said, changing the OPF is usually not required. Most changes can be done in another way. What are you trying to do?

[rubeus]

-----

[exaltedwombat]

I guess the metadata editor may be handier than you thought!

[rubeus]

-----

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rubeus

Can i change the namespace?
Can i change the unique dentifier?
Can i change the BookId?

There's no real good reason to change any of those things. Except if you want to increase the chances of breaking your opf.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There's no real good reason to change any of those things. Except if you want to increase the chances of breaking your opf.

One has to wonder
Why this would need to be done?

When the purpose of the tool is to generate a valid OPF

[rubeus]

-----

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by theducks

One has to wonder
Why this would need to be done?

When the purpose of the tool is to generate a valid OPF

I know some people create epub templates and want to avoid having all books have the same UUID as the BookID, but in that case, the best way forward is to create an additional new UUID entry and point the book ID from the package element at the new one. But I'm not sure that would even work (the one in the NCX needs to updated to match). Diddling with the existing UUID/BookID of an epub currently open in Sigil is just pretty-much a surefire way to wind up with a broken/reordered opf.

Or some people want to add the ISBN, and mistakenly think it has to be THE BookID. You can add the ISBN and leave the existing UUID in place. There is no inherent value/benefit in having the ISBN BE the unique BookID.

The fact of the matter is ... you can add a scad of UUIDs and other relevant identifiers to the OPF, but unless you're creating an epub template (and want to avoid duplicate BookIDs), there's no good reason not to just leave the existing UUID/BookID pair alone. I have no idea why a namespace in the opf would need to be changed (with Sigil).

I'll look into making a plugin (I had one in the old "Open With" plugin hack we had going a long time ago) to generate a new UUID. The template thing is a good enough reason to need something like that (even though I don't know of any reading system that actually depends--or even checks on--the uniqueness of the BookID).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rubeus

What i do not understand is the discussion WHY i want to do that, thats my way of working, its my way of organizing my library. If you have another way its ok for me, but thats not helpful for my question. So why is this going in a complete unhelpful direction? Your answer is not helpful for me, maybe for others

The "discussion WHY" is simple. You asked for help. Nine times out of ten, knowing WHY someone is trying to do what they're doing is very relevant to the discussion. Knowing that goal can lead to a completely different (and better) path to that goal that wouldn't have presented itself otherwise.

Is there any way of letting Sigil test the content.opf without saving it?

Did you try running the validator before saving to see if it would catch any of the glitches before you save?