bob said:
>   and spent a little time looking at them on my Sony Reader:

fantastic!

thank you for a very close and observant analysis...
these are the kind of reviews that we need more of!

***

jim, where are you?  don't flake on me now, buddy;
i will roam the wide countryside to hunt you down...

so, that .pdf you pointed us to is pretty good, really.
i might have a few qualms, like, for instance, i would
suggest that you not put the chapter-headings at the
very top of a page, they need some breathing-room,
but for the most part, the .pdf is pretty good, and you
can trust me when i say that, because i wouldn't say it
if it wasn't true (right?), and also because i know how
to analyze the functionality of a .pdf closely, including
minutia about which i do not yet care to educate you...

but the .pdf still leaves a few things to be desired...

for instance, you don't give people a way to skip to the
hotlinked table of contents from any place in the book,
which i would suggest, since its location on page 5 is
not exactly all that convenient.  page 2, right behind
the title-page, would be better.  (which reminds me,
can you get rid of the p.g. legalese?  we don't need it.)

this exacerbates the rather serious problem that this
.pdf lacks the normal table-of-contents that you will
traditionally find in the sidebar, a very useful feature.
(and no, those little page-icons are not a substitute.)

while i'm on this topic of the linked table of contents,
i'm sorry to say that i must report that the links do not
work correctly, beginning with the one for chapter two.
they consistently jump to a page which is one page shy.
you will want to fix that bug.

finally, we should all acknowledge that this .pdf reports
it was produced by microsoft office 2007, which is _not_
something that will work in the p.g. production pipeline.

so, jim, can you give us something that will support your
contention that p.g. should use .html as its master format?

-bowerbird