greg said:

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.

well, i guess that might be "enough said" if your sole objective is to displace blame. but from other perspectives, it's just lame. and overall, it's clearly a short-sighted take. it conveniently ignores your own culpability in _creating_ this situation as it now exists... further, it implies you couldn't make anything of substance with the input you get even now. and, in what might be its _most_ bizarre twist, it treats producers as a mysterious "black-box", when they are actually live humans with whom you _could_ engage in productive conversation... but, of course, that would require you to _listen_. *** don said:

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?

while not overly simplistic, this will not work, for both technical _and_ personnel reasons... there are too many ways to express structure in .html, so an omnibus converter is _thorny_. to make it bake, you must constrain the range. thus emerges the second problem: personnel. d.p. postprocessors were recruited with a lure of "you can make the book look like you like." indeed, that is the best (only?) reward they get. most have adopted the attitude that their goal is to make their .html look like the paper-book. (albeit not completely, and it's very fascinating to see which factors they do and do not honor; but their intent, for the most part, is to clone.) they also each developed an idiosyncratic style, and being a "snowflake" is important to them... so you'll never be able to make 'em robots now. and, unlike greg, who is now acting like this difficulty is something that was "inevitable", i was informing all of you, all along, that this would eventually bite all of you in the butt... but you didn't want to take your head out of it. plus you've never valued consistency correctly. so, i will say it again, directly: _i_told_you_so._ and i was right. and you were wrong. as usual. *** just because someone might find it interesting, this is the issue which got me banned from d.p. i was telling the postprocessors their snowflakes would eventually get discarded as "unworkable" -- they'd been told their .html would be at p.g. "forever", and that was a huge recruiting point, as some people thought it made 'em immortal -- so i was freaking out juliet to the banning stage. and the after-effects linger. part of the reason this issue causes so much resentment at d.p. is precisely because it questions that "immortality", by exposing the weakness of the .html versions. so there is a reluctance to face the fact directly... *** as i said up above, though, the strangest thing about this whole "debate", whenever it arises, is that producers are treated like a "black-box", which cannot be understood, let alone affected. this is bizarre. if you wanna understand these people, it's easy. they are cogent individuals who actively discuss these very issues, in public, on the d.p. forums... if you want to know what they're doing, and why they are doing it, and what they think about it all, all you have to do is go and read what they write. and let me tell you, their discussions are a _lot_ better -- smarter, well-rounded, nuanced, etc. -- than the ones which you people have here. really. plus, if you need, you can ask 'em questions, and they'll give you their answers, probably promptly. that's right, this is a black-box that can talk back! i have read these forums, and i can tell you that these producers are more than willing to give you what you want, _provided_ they get what they want. because -- after all -- they _are_ doing the work... they're not gonna sacrifice getting what they want just so you'll get what you want... that'd be stupid. but they've bent over backwards to try to give you what you want. so it's your turn to be reasonable. and let me tell you, the "make them do it my way" philosophy which marcello and lee and jim exhibit _won't_ get you what you want. in a million years. but here's a tip. before going over there for dialog, decide amongst yourselves what it is that you want. because one big reason they are frustrated with you is that you don't really have any idea what you want. *** so, is there anything which can be done here? well, d'uh, yeah, just like i have said all along... you can make some straightforward changes to the text version you require, and then use that as your master format. voila, bingo, regardez. you could still let people submit "snowflakes", you just wouldn't use them for the conversions. but you've ignored that advice a thousand times. so i expect that you will ignore it once again, eh? -bowerbird