This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
"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.
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)
Someone has tagged digital books for merging here; any opinions? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:30, 25 June 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
eGuide
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?
OPF links for FlipBooks ? .prc Apabi
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)
there's been no comment on this for weeks, so I am mergingDGG 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
-floodle and coconia--will someone else pls rvt--Ive done it 3 X already DGG 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-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)
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.
-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.
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.
least the name of the article, & I can tweak the description and links to avoid trouble.
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)
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)
What are Rocket .rb files? How do I read them? TIA Bastie 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
"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).