tunelera said:

Perhaps some of the time that is spent ranting about DP's work flow and DP's output could be better put to use creating more informative FAQs or even guidelines that DPers can use to create output that fits into the current thinking about acceptable HTML and/or other formats.

my word, it must be "convenient" to simply _ignore_ all the work that i've done here in the last six years. to reiterate, i solved this problem a long time ago... *** michael said:

Worthy of a second look: Marcello Perathoner said:

hey, go ahead and look a second time if you like, but marcello is rarely worth the effort... to some extent, he's on the right track. then again, to that exact same extent, i've said the same thing, over and over, again and again, for years and years. i'm also smart enough to know that postprocessors at d.p. will not go for this approach. they _want_ to make it look pretty. that's why they do what they do. so you will never get them to strip down their .html. but that doesn't matter... if you jigger the workflow so it will create a text-file which has semantic rigor -- e.g., one in z.m.l. format -- you can use _that_ as "the master file" and still let the postprocessors play for as long as they like in fancy-markup disneyland. plus you will make the d.p. workflow more efficient. -bowerbird p.s. i'm also smart enough to know it is impossible to "target" .epub at this time, because of the huge inconsistencies in the way that it gets rendered by the various apps out there. if you focus on adobe's, you're gonna break your file for other viewer-apps, and vice-versa. it will take _years_ to gain stability. the .epub scene was mired in hype since its start... p.p.s. and if _you_ were smart enough, you'd know rfrank already tried to target .epub, but he gave up. d.p. is down right now, so i can't quote you the u.r.l., but use the forum search and you can find it easily...