I've never seen the term "vanity html" before. The only effect I see for using it is to add to the hostility level and decrease the likelihood you will get cooperation. Same for "dumb-downed" but not as aggressively. I think better terms might be "complex" vs. "simple" and "portable" vs. "non-portable." Don On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de
wrote:
On 10/03/2012 10:19 PM, Jeroen Hellingman wrote:
There are long discussions on the PGDP boards about post processing for
ePub, but basically, I refuse to dumb-down my HTML for the sake of limited ePub readers,...
This is the very attitude that damages PG:
People, that think that 'their' HTML is superior to everybody else's and don't understand that the value of a big collection (vs. a single text) lies in its homogeneity and device independence.
This attitude is much worse than the bogus copyrights that some publishers prefix to PD texts, in so far as you can easily remove those copyrights, but you cannot easily remove that complex vanity HTML that DP producers love oh so well.
If my not-dumbed-down for the lowest denominator readers HTMLs would
become no-longer accepted, I will no longer submit anything to PG, but set-up my own ebook site with like minded people. You can only ask that much from volunteers who work hard to produce nice things. I've submitted over 500 books so far.
With your TEI workflow you could easily submit simple and interoperable HTML to PG, and complex vanity HTML to your own site.
-- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org ______________________________**_________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/**mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d<http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d>