On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 02:52:48PM -0800, don kretz wrote:
On Sunday, January 22, 2012, Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote:
Yes, confirmed.
Having numerous formats derived from a single master is a long-time goal. We've had some success with RST and TEI, and I've encouraged new projects to consider RST. There are still some limitations, though...
On the many, many words on gutvol-d recently about poor results with auto-conversion from HTML to other formats (epub and mobi, among others): this is often due to choices that producers make about using HTML to impact layout, rather than just structure. Enough said. -- Greg
Au contraire. I think there are plenty of producers who don't understand the distinction.
Why aren't WWers send back projects that include destructive layout tagging, or don't include important structural tagging? I can think of any number of reasons for rejection that are less disruptive to the reader's satisfaction.
Because we have automated checks for validity and good spelling. We don't have automated checks for (mis-) use of HTML for layout. If we had some sort of automated and relatively unambiguous checks for such things, I'm sure that many submitters would strive to comply. -- Greg