Talk:Ebook/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Seriously?

"a book may be produced by re-entering the text from a keyboard."

I can't imagine this is true... if it is, it probably needs a citation.

Moved

Now the discussion can commence on whether it should be renamed to "Electronic book"... Five years from now people are going to be laughing at renaming everything just because it is "online", and sentences like "They surveyed the field of eBook eFormats available, and decided to ePublish their eMagazine". Translated into an intelligent sentence, this simply means "They surveyed the field of electronic-book formats and decided to publish their magazine online."-- Centrx 20:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Also, I edited out an argument against it that said "No quality of book as an item" because, well, that seems like a limp blow because books deteriorate over time and electronic books don't, and it wasn't as solid as the rest of the reasons on there being that it was kind of iffy and questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.104.74 (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge of digital books proposed

Someone has tagged digital books for merging here; any opinions? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any substantial difference between a "digital book" and an "e-book", so they should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrx (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 June 2006

Archived (in time) here

Comment The link in the digital books article focuses on the automated technology to scan and digitize printed works (Note: 'digitize' being a long established Engineering term dating back to at least the late seventies) into e-book 'output' formats, so creates e-books. That certai

• • nly puts it into a 'related' relationship, so I have no problems with speedily merging the content. However, I'd suggest the 'digital books' title be morphed into a 'digital book scanning technology' article rather than a 'everything but the kitchen sink merge'—mainly on preserving the 'keyword string' to enhance wikipedia's hit counts in search engines. In otherwords, the 'digital books' article is a misnomer, a stub, BUT probably should be a seperate article referencing both e-books and digitizing. // FrankB 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

digital scanning?

I am about to merge, but should I change the name as you suggest--do you have content to put in. Or,how about digital scanning tehnology since there is a great deal that applies to any document. --and there is specific book technology , as used in GooglePrint etc. I only know enough to write a bare stub--and I am suprised the stuff isn't is WP somewhere that I've missedDGG 08:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Msreeharsha 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) I agree with the merger...it would a complete "article"

The general heading is digital libraries, a good summary page. digitizing is a disamb page in essence, tho it's pretending to be an article. It doesn't recognize our mean--pure techie. DGG 07:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

current use of these terms

I don't always hold with using Google counts, but this is one topic where it might be valid: updated in the previous year: ebook -- 113 million e-book (or e book) -- 37 million electronic book-- 2.3 million digital book, 890 thousand

DGG 05:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Open Electronic Book Package Format

the article says that there is an ongoing project to let people read opf flipbooks in broswers, yet there is no link or further information. i'm think that this refers to the Openberg project and the OeBF, but i'm not really sure. maybe someone who knows more about this can clarify? --01:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IDPF - the Leading Body for E-Publications

The International Digital Publishing Forum <http://www.idpf.org> (IDPF), formerly the Open eBook Forum (OeBF), is the trade and standards association for the digital publishing industry. IDPF members consist of academic, trade and professional publishers, hardware and software companies, digital content retailers, libraries, educational institutions, accessibility advocates and related organizations whose common goals are to advance the competitiveness and exposure of digital publishing. Davidrothman 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The IDPF and the OpenReader Consortium

The IDPF section ideally will mention that tech-related companies, rather than actual publishers, control the group's board. Reps from Adobe, ETI, eReader and OverDrive (a tech-oriented distributor around built on proprietary DRM systems) occupy four of the IDPF's seven board seats. These companies set the tone on technical matters even though their interests may not be the same as those of publishers and libraries. I'll let others insert this information--well, at least the objective and rather significant fact about the board makeup--if they're inclined.

Meanwhile, as a co-founder of the OpenReader Consortium, I've added a mention of OpenReader below one of the IPDF mentions. The IDPF in recent years neither talked nor walked consumer-level e-book standards until OpenReader came along. OpenReader will be building on the IDPF production standards while seeking to avoid "gotchas" at the consumer level such as proprietary DRM loopholes. We want standards efforts to be spun off to mainstream group such as OASIS, offering a wider range of experts than does the IDPF--including those in multimedia areas. To illustrate the problem, reps from ETI preside over both the container format and core format committees of the IDPF. Meanwhile, based on draft specs, an OpenReader implementation called dotReader will be appearing from a company called OSoft (I've been involved in dotReader development). Freeload Press, topic of widespread press coverage of its textbook efforts, as Google News can verify, will be among the companies using dotReader and the OpenReader standard. Meanwhile, I've restored mention of my TeleRead site, a leading source of e-book news and views, with special emphasis on an open approach. TeleRead usually draws more traffic than the IPDF site--in fact, at times even outdraws LibraryJournal.com. Thanks! Davidrothman 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Economics

It would be great to have a nicely referenced sources of economics of ebook business. Bean story is great (if unreferenced), are there others?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There isnt much to merge from digital books

Since the digital books page has only one paragraph, and one reference--and to an advertisement at that--its continued existence is perhaps a little absurd. I make no judgement about which word is better, for the public at large have done so, and e-book (however hypenated), is the word. Time to recognize that.. While I'm here, I ask the assembled specialists what is the better term for journals, e-journal or electronic journal? Google is about evenly divided, as is use by pubisher and libraries. Looking at the e-book page, and considering eprint, my feeling has change to e-journal, for consistency. DGG 05:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Baen books

Since there is a magnificent article--or rather group of articles, about the publisher, I removed the full description here and excerpted one paragraph in an appropriate place, where we can also add other notable publishers in special fields. I hope the aficionados will change the wording to more appropriately represent the publisher, if I have not got it quite right. They're the experts!. DGG 06:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

links (& examples of book using them) needed for these formats

eGuide

not e book formats, but composition & typesetting languages.

TEX this is a scientific typesetting program, not an ebook format. Knuth used it to publish his books on programming in print format. has it been used as an ebook?

rtf any books published in theis format?

I agree. These two formats don't belong in the article. I'll delete them.--76.81.164.27 16:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User Sir james paul reverted my deletion of the TeX section and left a message on my talk page. I left a message on his talk page, explaining what was going on. I've undone his revert.--76.81.164.27 16:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

links needed

OPF links for FlipBooks ? .prc Apabi

links (and perhaps articles) needed

IDPF EPIC (these are referrred to in the text as a source of data-and certainly need a link, & would seem to me also an article. DGG 06:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

merge

there's been no comment on this for weeks, so I am mergingDGG 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

detail

For specific commercial products--even those that are notable enough to include--full product details and compatibility belong on the manufacturer's site. (They'd have to be very notable indeed to justify an individual article) DGG 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

pls rvt spam

-floodle and coconia--will someone else pls rvt--Ive done it 3 X already DGG 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

-I would like to suggest [name of possible attack site] to be added to "Free e-book repositories" section. It is a valuable source for free eBay eBooks that are public domain. --Y Dude 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• In a word, no.
• The page lists only self-help pamphlets & leaflets, and not many at that, and is therefore inapropriate for this list.

Much as I like E-Bay, this is totally inappropriate, and please do not try to add it again unless the site has more real book content. The other sites listed here have books, not leaflets. I am not judging arbitrarily; I have tested it. current example from that site: 101 everyday tips for losing 10 pounds., 65 Tried & Trusted Amish Recipes etc.

• • Much worse, many of them are not .pdfs, but rather .exe files. Downloading such files from such a source is dangerous. A link to a site which can so easily be used for attacks is unacceptable, and should be unacceptable anywhere. DGG 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

-Want to suggest adding www.Free-eBooks.net [i won't lie to you it's my site :-) ] to the repositories section. It's a directory of thousands of private label ebooks (not public domain ones like many other sites) which people can download for absolutely free.

I greatly respect you for asking first. I took a look at your perfectly respectable site, and it seems to me that most of the content --at least the featured content-- is self-published books that do not seem notable in the same degree that the other listings are. All such listings have been immediately deleted by any one of the several determined people who watch for them. If I added yours now, it would be gone tomorrow.

The article on self-publishing avoids links to any repository at all.

It would be possible to start an article for listings of sources for such books as yours. I personally would have no objection. But I do not own this topic, and articles of that sort get deleted very quickly. The term that gets used is "Wikipedia is not a web directory."

I wish I could help more.DGG 20:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ebook compilers and readers

Some of the software in the text is as non-notable as some of that excluded. Many of the ones that are linked to articles are linked to articles that would not meet the notability test.

• I therefore propose that we:

limit the section on formats to actual formats, listing separately those for which there is a link to a WP article for the format itself, writing one if necessary, and having a group: other formats for those that do not.

Perhaps then having a section on e-book readers, done analogously.

And have a separate page for e-Book authoring systems. There are quite a number: I am not sure if any is notable enough for a full article, some have non-notable articles, and some are worth a link, others perhaps not. There is a particular problem with their names, for some have used a generic name as their trade-name. There has just been a very long discussion on the Copyright problems talk page about trademarks, with the consensus being that WP has no overall policy on the subject & leaves it to the editors of each article. I think it would be well not to have trademark problems with at

least the name of the article, & I can tweak the description and links to avoid trouble.

I suggest the criterion for a link would be 1 review or mention in some 3rd party publication, OR evidence of wide adoption--perhaps more than 1000 (or 100) books. This is much weaker than for an article, which I think should be kept fairly rigorous. There is widespread interest in such devices from people likely to be users of WP, and the devices in general are certainly notable enough for a single article. WP is not a web directory, but this would be more than that. Comments?DGG 23:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Readers vs. editors vs formats

The Format section has gotten quite proposed & the uncompleted sections were it oreder to move some of the less appropriate ones where they belong, and have formats discuss formats & only formats.User:DGG 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

recent deletions

A number of deletions have been made by an anonymous editor. I am restoring them, as no reason was given. Please discuss here before removing them again--the eds. here have generally been able to reach consensus on such things. DGG 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RB

What are Rocket .rb files? How do I read them? TIA Bastie 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Print errors add to value?

"Errors are "forever"; this unchangeability sometimes adds to its value"

Is this even true? Maybe I'm just an illiterate wierdo, but I think it needs a citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Destron5 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC).