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

I already did this BB, but like always you are not listening.

What I gave as support for my contention that PG should use HTML as its master format is the fact of life that overwhelming what PG customers are telling you they want, from their simple act of downloading, that statistically what overwhelming they really want is files in HTML file format, and/or its two closely derived file formats, EPUB and MOBI. 

Further, I showed that it is trivial for customers to generate the PDF that they want, in the page size and format they want from the HTML if they want to do so.  I’m not against PG also providing on-the-fly rendering of HTML to PDF in a page size the customer specifies, with a margin size they also specify, and whether they want 1-up portrait, or 2-up landscape, and/or two sided, and/or center-bound, etc, if PG actually wants to support paper-printer issues -- I just don’t believe anyone at PG *actually* wants to really support such printer-related issues – I am happy if PG also support PDF as long as PG doesn’t take the feedbooks approach of dumbing-down the books we submit back to 1970s txt-only format! In practice PDF IS ALWAYS a generated output rendering format in any case, since NOBODY actually authors in PDF.

In practice, the farther off you start from giving customers what they want, then the farther off you are going to end up from giving customers what they want.