don said:
I've never seen the term "vanity html" before.
i've used the term "snowflake" _many_ times before. i'm quite sure jim is using "vanity" in a similar way...
The only effect I see for using it is to add to the hostility level and decrease the likelihood you will get cooperation.
i am the one who uses tactical means to increase the odds that y'all won't act on my advice, not jim. i do that because i am _amused_ by your resistance to the message due to your dislike of the messenger. i find it quit entertaining that you guys would rather thrash around, back and forth, for _years_ (literally!), instead of adopting a solution i have proven to work. in other words, i don't need any of your "cooperation". i'm doing just fine, _laughing_ here on the sidelines... as for jim, i think the term "vanity" probably represents the fact that he sees the "snowflake" .html as selfish... and i think he's probably right about that. even though i use a different term (one that might be less evaluative), i say jim's entitled to use "vanity" to express his feelings. that doesn't mean he's using it to decrease cooperation.
Same for "dumb-downed" but not as aggressively.
i disagree that this term is being used for "spin" either. i think it accurately depicts a viewpoint which is common. i also believe, and feel i have proven, that that viewpoint is not based in fact. you definitely have to change stuff, to make it work on today's somewhat primitive e-readers, but the resultant product still works sufficiently properly to avoid the label of "dumbed-down". indeed, at times, the "fancy" .html used for desktops can get "too cute" and trip over itself, and ends up giving a degraded experience. so i strongly _disagree_ with jeroen, and the other people who use this term, because i believe it reflects a mindset that doesn't have to be held to describe reality accurately. (it's certainly true that one _can_ "dumb-down" the .html. but i say that it's not _necessary_ to do so to make it work. i've been able to make all common book-elements work.) but even though i disagree with the term "dumbed-down", i understand that it reflects the mentality of some people, a mentality which is not accurate, but still one they hold... and thus, i certainly don't think it's being used for "spin", or to increase the hostility, and most certainly not for the purpose of sabotaging any possibilities for "cooperation". indeed, "dumbed-down" doesn't have any ad hominem in it. (and even "vanity" is only ad hominem if you interpret it so.)
I think better terms might be "complex" vs. "simple" and "portable" vs. "non-portable."
those poles are no better. in some ways, they are worse. "conversion-capable" versus "snowflake" is the essence. this stresses that _conversion_ is the main objective... "snowflake" is the obvious word to use for the one pole, because everyone knows that every snowflake is _unique_. there are lots of ways to accomplish something in .html. if you multiply all the possibilities, they become infinite. you need to have common coding conventions in order to chop down that infinity into a number that can be handled. to sum up, it must be _standardized_to_a_limited_palette_. (where the word "limited" pertains to numbers, not quality.) this means that if there are 89 ways to do something, you might have to chop that down to a mere 23. or 7. or, if you can formulate code to handle all 89, then there's no reason from that standpoint to set a limit, although you might impose a limit anyway, so as to make it easy on the humans maintaining the library. for the purpose of computer conversion, then, you'll need to actually _write_the_code_ so you know _how_many_ and _which_ of those 89 different ways your code can handle... avoiding snowflakes is a _necessary_ condition for conversion. but it's not enough, in and of itself. in order to convert properly, you need to understand the structural nature of every single element within the book. now, it's possible to have a complex scheme which is still _incapable_ of conversion because it doesn't communicate the necessary information about the structures in the book. on the other hand, it's possible to have a scheme which is _simple_, yet still manages to communicate the information. sure, there's a possibility for a complex scheme that works. (although then there arises another question about whether that would be a good solution for a volunteer organization. but for this reply, we're concentrating on terminology use.) and there is, of course, the simple scheme that doesn't work. but it's just wrong to think that any simple scheme will fail, and any complex scheme will succeed. so that label is bogus. as for portable/non-portable, i'm not sure what you mean. i suppose you could say you meant "convertable/snowflake", but if that's what you really meant, then don't be ambiguous, say it in a way that doesn't require the internal interpretation. -bowerbird