i see internet archive is doing another "books in browsers"
conference, with one of the themes being "beautiful books".

so i have two questions.

first, isn't it a bit presumptuous to speak of "beautiful books"
when the actual .epub and .mobi e-books you serve to people
are filled with the distressingly ugly crap of uncorrected o.c.r.?

second, the point about "books in browsers" in something that
is a bit misleading.  i don't believe anyone would question that
the e-books in our cyberlibrary must be viewable in a browser.

but is that the _only_ way that they should be viewable?

or even the most important way they could be viewed?

let me rephrase the question, to illustrate the point.

assume i said "twitter in browsers", or "facebook in browsers".

again, i don't think anyone would argue that twitter or facebook
should _not_ be available in a browser.  that would be ridiculous.

but it would be equally ridiculous to put forward the argument
that twitter or facebook _only_ be available in browsers, or even
that browsers should be the _predominant_ platform for them.
we've learned that app access is typically _much_ more friendly.

the world of software applications has lately come to appreciate
in a very deep manner the importance of decoupling the content
of a website from the browser-interface used to see that content.

nowadays, the a.p.i.'s which you offer are _extremely_ important
in terms of leveraging the relevance of your content by allowing
outside developers to add value to it in ways you hadn't foreseen.

particularly with e-books, the chrome and functionality that is
offered by the web-browser are _not_ particularly appropriate
to the interface, the content, or any of the reading experience.

to the extent that you focus on the browser, you miss the point.

-bowerbird