Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Kindle is Getting Support For HTML5

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the that's-right-supporting-of-you-jeff dept.

Books 123

Nate the greatest writes "It looks like Amazon won't be adopting Epub after all. [Thursday] Amazon released some technical details on the new Kindle ebook format, which they are calling Kindle 8. There are a lot of interesting changes to the file, including new formatting and SVG images. The new tags are going to open up a whole lot of new possibilities for making Kindle ebooks."

cancel ×

123 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Been there, saw that. (1)

Lisias (447563) | about 3 years ago | (#37801724)

Kindle is the new I.E.6; Is the Amazon the new Microsoft?

Re:Been there, saw that. (1)

Xugumad (39311) | about 3 years ago | (#37802844)

It's not that bad, thankfully (but still quite bad). It's easy to convert between ePub and Mobipocket ( http://calibre-ebook.com/ [calibre-ebook.com] does so rather well and is free), as they're both HTML at the core anyway. The only real issues are book-specific parts like handling pagination or footnotes, where the standards (where there is one) tend to be incompatible extensions to HTML.

DRM (2)

ondelette (253185) | about 3 years ago | (#37801730)

What about DRM?

Re:DRM (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | about 3 years ago | (#37801778)

What about DRM?

No DRM on personal documents like PDFs or Webpages

Re:DRM (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 3 years ago | (#37801884)

Yes, but we're talking about books.

We're glad that there's no DRM on personal PDFs and webpages, that's so kind of them.

Re:DRM (2, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 3 years ago | (#37802066)

Exactly.

I have been interested from the beginning, but not offense or trolling intended, but who gives a flying $(#)($ about a new format.

As long as Amazon still has control over my Kindle and can remove my "property" without knowledge or consent I could care less about significant improvements to the file formats and features. It's interesting, but I would rather know that Amazon has fundamentally changed its policies. That *would* be welcome news.

This is like Sony introducing a new firmware with some cool features..... but we still have to overlook that we are on a locked down paranoid platform, the PS3.

There was a lot I did not appreciate about Steve Jobs, but man did he give us some freedom to truly own our music again. I wish I could download purchased books without DRM like I can music.

Re:DRM (4, Informative)

thesuperbigfrog (715362) | about 3 years ago | (#37802248)

You can thank Steve Jobs for the fully locked-down and now ubiquitous agency model that practically all publishers use.

"In the agency model, publishers set the price and designate an agent--in this case the bookseller--who will sell the book and receive the 30% commission. Adopting the model for e-books tends to mean e-book prices will rise, something both publishers and independent retailers applaud. Publishers believe low e-book prices devalue their books and cannibalize hardcover sales. Under the agency model once a price has been set it cannot be changed or discounted by the retailer and independent e-book retailers believe the higher prices of the agency model allow them to compete with big e-book vendors. " (from this article [publishersweekly.com] )

At least Amazon was selling ebooks for reasonable prices and encouraging competition in the market. Now we have a racket that is enforced on all sellers. Neither he nor Amazon have been able to dissuade publishers from using DRM.

Re:DRM (2)

EdIII (1114411) | about 3 years ago | (#37802300)

Interesting.

I never knew anything about that. Only thing I remember is that he gave me a viable alternative to piracy and/or purchasing over priced CDs.

It was the DRM that turned me off the Kindle from the first place, which is ironically, still a result from Steve Jobs. He was the one who showed me that eventually I could purchase DRM free music and I have not been interested in getting involved with any kind of transaction system that does not allow DRM free downloads.

Same reason why I will never have a Blockbuster account with video. "Purchases" are anything but.

Thanks for the insight into the publishing business. I don't mind paying the price for dead trees right now, because that does not have any DRM.

Re:DRM (3, Informative)

thesuperbigfrog (715362) | about 3 years ago | (#37802422)

Yes, I too think that DRM-free ebooks are a good thing.

If you read technical books, O'Reilly offers DRM-free ebooks from their website in several formats, including PDF, ePUB, and MOBI (Kindle-compatible).

They do this by marking your ebook: "Prepared for [your_email_address], [Your Name]" on the bottom of the pages. I think this is okay since it discourages piracy and marks the book as yours the same as if your wrote your name in the front cover of a paper book.

I hope that other publishers will adopt this practice or something similar.

Re:DRM (1)

MadChicken (36468) | more than 2 years ago | (#37804402)

I have a number of O'Reilly books, and none of them have that, at least in the ePub or PDF. It is not a bad idea though.

Re:DRM (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 3 years ago | (#37802944)

You can thank Steve Jobs for the fully locked-down and now ubiquitous agency model that practically all publishers use.

Yes. But unlike the iPhone, you can transfer eBooks from other sources to your kindle with a plain usb cable. (or even by email). DRM is no way mandatory on the kindle.

Re:DRM (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803146)

Nor is DRM mandatory in iBooks. I sell content not protected by DRM. It's optional.

Re:DRM (1)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37804476)

Yes. But unlike the iPhone, you can transfer eBooks from other sources to your kindle with a plain usb cable. (or even by email). DRM is no way mandatory on the kindle.

Actually, you can put DRM Free ePubs onto your iPhone through iTunes, so DRM isn't mandatory on either device...

Re:DRM (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 2 years ago | (#37805542)

I was thinking more in terms of "native" content. eBooks for Kindle, Apps for iPhone

Re:DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37805444)

You can thank Steve Jobs for the fully locked-down and now ubiquitous agency model that practically all publishers use.

Yes. But unlike the iPhone, you can transfer eBooks from other sources to your kindle with a plain usb cable. (or even by email). DRM is no way mandatory on the kindle.

you can on the iphone and ipad too. Not with a USB cable but with the charge cable, email, or my personal favorite dropbox. Most of my books aren't drmed they are purchased from places like O'Reillys, pragprog. Just so I don't have drm on my books. All I used is ibooks for the iphone and ipad to read theme.

Jobs wasn't the first Steve (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37804932)

You can thank Steve Jobs for the fully locked-down and now ubiquitous agency model that practically all publishers use.

We can thank him for popularizing it, but Jobs wasn't the first Steve to use the agency model. Xbox Live Indie Games had been using the agency model, where the publisher sets the price and the store gets a fixed percent cut, for a few months before iOS 2 came out.

Re:DRM (0)

BrentH (1154987) | about 3 years ago | (#37802570)

Do what I did: purchasefrom a third party and never register the thing with Amazon. I can put any (DRM-free) ebook on it when mounted as USB drive, I can surf the web, and Amazon will never know. Perfect.

Re:DRM (1)

sensei moreh (868829) | about 3 years ago | (#37803006)

As long as Amazon still has control over my Kindle and can remove my "property" without knowledge or consent I could care less about significant improvements to the file formats and features.

Please do care less. But don't be careless about it. By the way, I fully agree with the sentiment.

Re:DRM (1)

DadLeopard (1290796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37805628)

You can, you just have to be careful what and where you buy! It's called voting with your wallet! If you like the right type of SF&F then http://www.webscription.net/ [webscription.net] is one such place, then there is Fictionwise.com's mutiformat books they are DRM free, lots of places like that around you just have to look for them and not get seduced by the Amazons and B&Ns of the world!

Re:DRM (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37804790)

No DRM on books from Project Gutenberg.

Re:DRM (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37801782)

I can't answer that question, but I can tell you that I just gave birth to a footlong brownsnake as thick and hearty as a jungle python.

Your mother gobbled it down like a champ and asked for seconds.

Re:DRM (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37801796)

I just dropped the obama kids off at the pool, myself. I don't know if they're communists, but there sure was a lot of red!

Of course (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#37802444)

At this point, there is no option. Publishers will not allow for un-DRM'd ebooks. So unless Amazon was willing to have only titles they publish on the Kindle, and they could convince authors to accept no DRM, they must have it. Amazon, being in the retail business, will do what the publishers want.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803110)

Which is why Amazon are courting authors to self-publish. Publishers are doomed. Book stores are disappearing, and few people want over sized over priced hardbacks.

Re:DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803906)

Despicable rotten motherfuckers.

DeDRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37801740)

If nothing else, it should make it easier to strip off any DRM. Damn stupid Topaz books... wouldn't have bought them if I'd known they were in a totally screwed up format :(

Re:DeDRM (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37801852)

How would it make DRM any easier? DRM'd Kindle books are already "encrypted" HTML, just a much smaller subset of it - MobiPocket. Since DRM itself is completely orthogonal to the book format, I don't see how them moving towards HTML5 would change anything.

Re:DeDRM (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#37802136)

Topaz isn't based on HTML. From what I've read, it basically consists of a series of glyphs and information about their placement on the page—more like PDF than HTML.

Re:DeDRM (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#37802308)

Ah, my apologies, I missed the mention of Topaz in the original post.

That said, from what little I've read about it, it seems that Topaz is a legacy format that's mainly designed for quick-and-dirty scanning of existing paper books. That would explain why it's so vanishingly rare in new releases, which are prepared for e-publishing from the get go. The most common one there is .AZW, which is MobiPocket wrapped in Amazon DRM - i.e. HTML. I don't think I have any Topaz books in my collection, judging by the fact that they all reflow according to changing reader size and let me change the default font - and I have a few dozen books purchased from Kindle Store.

Good News for Authors (2)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 3 years ago | (#37801848)

I'm writing a book [lacunaverse.com] for Kindle (naturalistic sci-fi, 61,000 words in) and I look upon the inevitable Kindle conversion with a terrible dread. I'm typing it up in Google Docs, but because I use italics for emphasis, this means I have to either manually construct the book (and manually re-put in all my italics and formatting), or use a converter which will produce sucky output which will require a lot of manual cleanup...

If the Kindle supports HTML5 however, Google Docs will do a bang-up job (by and large) of converting it straight to HTML5. Good news for me I guess!

Re:Good News for Authors (4, Insightful)

optimism (2183618) | about 3 years ago | (#37801912)

I look upon the inevitable Kindle conversion with a terrible dread. I'm typing it up in Google Docs, but because I use italics for emphasis, this means I have to either manually construct the book (and manually re-put in all my italics and formatting), or use a converter which will produce sucky output which will require a lot of manual cleanup

Crikey.

I had no idea the Kindle conversion was as lame as you say.

I thought we software-folk had solved all the issues of converting basic formatted text about 20 years ago. Equations, vector graphics, embedded images...OK, they might still be cross-format hurdles.

But italics? Seriously? That's so 1980's

Re:Good News for Authors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803218)

I was considering contributing to a book on SVG for SAMS about 10 years ago. Until I found out they wanted submissions in Word format.

NO! And you can't make me!

it's not just italics... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37804232)

The current Kindle format does not support BULLET POINTS in text. I am baffled.

Re:Good News for Authors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37804304)

Go look at the format list that Amaon allows you to upload in. That is the problem. They convert the books into .mobi, and the closest you can get to there format is the EPUB. By the way, did anybody else note that EPUB is XHTML, and EPUB 3 do out soon is HTML5?

So they are using EPUB, but renaming it? Maybe a different folder structure.

Re:Good News for Authors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37801998)

...or use a converter which will produce sucky output which will require a lot of manual cleanup...

If the Kindle supports HTML5 however, Google Docs will do a bang-up job (by and large) of converting it straight to HTML5. Good news for me I guess!

Have you tried KindleGen? http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000234621
It converts "HTML, XHTML, XML (OPF/IDPF format), or ePub source into a Kindle Book." They are going to release an update soon...
From TFA:
"KindleGen 2 (available soon) creates Kindle content from a wide variety of sources including HTML, XHTML, and EPUB."

Re:Good News for Authors (5, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | about 3 years ago | (#37802176)

KindleGen (at least in the shipping version, v1.2) is great as long as you don't mind 90% of your CSS going away in ways that are utterly mind-blowingly awful looking.

When generating content for Kindle for my novel, I have to produce a whole separate set of HTML source content with dozens of differences between that and proper EPUB (including a fair number of tags that aren't even legal in EPUB, but are the only way to get KindleGen to behave).

The short list is that:

  • Right margins don't work.
  • Width and min-width CSS don't work (but the HTML width attribute does).
  • IIRC, padding doesn't work at all.
  • The blockquote tag only indents for a single paragraph unless you close and reopen it.
  • CSS class attributes with more than one class don't work. (Only the last one is used, IIRC.)
  • Most CSS selectors that contain multiple tags with some symbol in between them are incorrectly treated in such a way that the rule applies to both classes.
  • Font styles are completely nonexistent. You can't even do something as basic as specifying that parts of the content should be serif and parts should be sans-serif.

Basically, you should assume that you'll have to rewrite all your content to have exactly one CSS style for each paragraph or other block-level element, selected programmatically based on how you want it to behave. So if you want something to happen only on the first paragraph after a section heading in the appendices, you're going to end up with classes like " class='firstParagraphAfterSectionHeadingInAppendix' " or similar for those paragraphs.

I spent less than a day getting content working in a properly standards-compliant browser (including writing the code to translate it from XML), a couple more hours working around minor layout bugs on Nook, and around a week getting Kindle to look even remotely palatable. That's for somebody who writes parsers as part of his day job. I mean, don't get me wrong, I spent several weeks pounding on LaTeX for PDF output, so the Kindle experience was by no means the most horrible part of the process, but it was way up there.

Put bluntly, KindleGen isn't the answer. At best, it's the first 10% of the answer. The rest, you get to code yourself. That's why pretty much everybody I've ever encountered who has attempted to format an eBook for Kindle has pretty much come out the other side with a whole new vocabulary of swear words. :-D

Re:Good News for Authors (-1, Flamebait)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 years ago | (#37802174)

I'm writing a book [lacunaverse.com] for Kindle (naturalistic sci-fi, 61,000 words in)

Mistake #1

I'm typing it up in Google Docs

Mistake #What the fuck is wrong with you why couldn't you have tried using something sensible you fucking lunatic? /hyperbole

Seriously though, I pity you.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

inflex (123318) | about 3 years ago | (#37802290)

Ooh, we're also a bit of a lutantic asylum here - we use LyX / LaTeX for our fiction-novel works, though the PDF output is brilliant for printing - we still have to export to HTML and import to Calibre to get it to Kindle.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37802562)

Ah, should have read this before I posted. That's very close to my workflow, except that I export to ePub and clean it up before using Calibre to get it to Kindle.

(Though I don't use LyX - in my experience, which is years out of date now - it produces doggy LaTeX. I find it easier to just code it in Emacs. Kile produces reasonable LaTeX output if you want a GUI though.)

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

inflex (123318) | about 3 years ago | (#37802932)

LyX v2 is quite good these days. It still has -some- hiccups on the LaTeX generation and mingling TeX directly into LyX can mean a few things are missed on the exports (for some reason it doesn't always seem to get exported if you're not going with PDF), however overall from a writer's perspective, LyX v2 is a nice compromise. As a side note, we're using the Memoirs style package, which in itself is a whole extra world of reading :)

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37802952)

I'll give it another look. I'm very used to hand-coding LaTeX these days but it'll never hurt to have other options :)

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

Tomato42 (2416694) | about 3 years ago | (#37803156)

Seconded for Kile, it's better than most of LaTeX editors (like the "sort-of-standard" TeXnic)

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 years ago | (#37802598)

No, we write perl scripts that convert our LaTeX files to nicely formatted ODT files. From there it's save as .doc and upload. DUH. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 3 years ago | (#37802968)

Wow. That is a statement where a sarcasm detector would ba actually usefull. (I wouldn't bet against people out there really doing that)

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 years ago | (#37803002)

*whistles*

Re:Good News for Authors (2)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37802556)

Out of interest, why on Earth are you writing it in Google Docs? When I write things I tend to use LaTeX, which probably strikes most people as even more insane but it compiles up to lovely PDFs, and it's pretty quick to swap it to HTML and build up an ePub or MobiPocket. I could of course write straight in HTML (or in markup which could be easily swapped to both) but I'm very used to LaTeX.

I've not had too many problems converting properly clean RTFs into ePub or MobiPocket and vice-versa using Calibre. I find it's actually a lot easier to build the LaTeX version for printed copies, convert it into the ePub version for an eBook, and then just use Calibre to port it to different formats. I've not had a noticeable issue yet.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 3 years ago | (#37802694)

I'm writing it in Google Docs because, well, to me it most accurately resembles what the final product will look like. Call me strange, but "seeing" it is important.

Technically Docs can convert to HTML too and it does a good job (as I mentioned), which the converter converts to their strange format. It's just that the Kindle converter, judging by my brief playing around with the converter, is very very strict. It's much more likely to pass if you build the HTML manually, which also produces much much cleaner code (CSS and styles are bad for Kindle, the Google Docs output uses a lot of both from what I can see).

That, and I really really like Google Docs. It makes it easy to share stuff with people who've foolishly volunteered to help, and I don't have to worry about constantly shuffling it between my iPhone, my laptop, my desktop, a net cafe...

Re:Good News for Authors (2)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37802750)

Hmm, OK. I still think you're making more problems for yourself than necessary, though. Why don't you use a WYSIWIG HTML editor? Or LibreOffice, which may or may not make cleaner HTML than Google Docs? (I've no idea; I've not tried either. I stopped using word processor HTML export about twelve years ago when Word XP -- or even earlier; I forget -- spat reams of gibberish at me.)

Also, are you closely wedded to the Kindle Convertor? Can you not use Calibre to build a MobiPocket? Or are there features in the Kindle convertor that you need?

Sorry for the questions - genuinely interested. I've always targetted ePub and relied on Calibre to produce a readable MobiPocket for people with Kindles.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 3 years ago | (#37802806)

I'm not closely wedded to the Kindle converter, nope, I just wanted to make sure that it was accepted by the Kindle people. I've heard of Calibre but haven't actually tried it yet. I'm actually downloading it now to give it a shot.

What I'd really like is some kind of WYSIWYG eBook writer, but I don't think such a thing exists...

Re:Good News for Authors (3, Informative)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37802868)

You can get Sigil [google.com] - it's a WYSISYG ePub writer. You can either write in the word processor window, or in the raw XHTML. I've not used it to build ePubs from scratch but I have used it to edit and clean them up and it's reasonably nice once you get used to its quirks.

Calibre's OK, but I'd stick to the command-line tools, if I were you. I find the GUI distracting and not really quite suited for the purpose I put it to, whereas the command-line tools are there to edit metadata (though you might want to edit the results by hand to avoid Calibre leaving its fingerprints everywhere) and convert from a multitude of input formats to a multitude of outputs. ePub -> Mobi/AZW is particularly clean since ultimately so far as I know it's swapping one subset of XHTML to another subset of XHTML.

Both are worth a try. You do lose the easy sharing that you're getting with Google Docs, but you can always replace that with something like DropBox.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37802884)

Also I don't know how you're planning on selling, but going through Amazon's Kindle Publishing (rather than cutting deals with them directly, which most of us aren't anything like big enough to do) they say they prefer DOC uploads. They accept ePub though so that's what I feed them, and the results have come out absolutely fine. Some of the other online publishing routes -- like Smashwords, which I use in addition to Amazon -- have other requirements. Smashwords only accepts RTFs, and strictly formatted ones at that. For putting things up there, I cheat a bit and use Calibre to swap the ePub to an RTF and then spend an hour or two reformatting the whole damned thing to fit the Smashwords style guide... so that they can convert it back into an ePub almost identical to the one I started with.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 3 years ago | (#37802886)

I gave Calibre a shot -- it failed with the ODF, but the PDF worked fine. I didn't try HTML but I probably should.

I put the .mobi file into the Kindle simulator and it had a few obvious formatting problems (mostly to do with chapter headings and the occasional, minor issue) but it actually worked out fine. What I might do is use Calibre to convert the PDF or HTML to ePub, then use Sigil to clean it up as you suggest. The cleanup should be fairly minor and judging by how accurate it is I could probably get it done in a day.

That's actually a huge relief! Thank you! :D

Re:Good News for Authors (2)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37802900)

No problem :)

Focus on converting HTML into ePub - the output from PDFs tends to be really doggy. I know the developers are trying to improve that, but they're really hampered by the fact that PDF really isn't well suited to reflowing, no matter what Adobe do to amend that. But HTML to ePub should be very clean, and ePubs are easy to edit either by hand or with something like Sigil.

(In case you're not aware, to edit an ePub by hand, change the extension from .epub to .zip, unzip it, and go into the OEBS directory, or whatever they've called it. The files will all be in there as either HTML or XHTML, and you can work on them directly to clean up the most stubborn problems. Or just use Sigil and access the files that way.)

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

mibus (26291) | about 3 years ago | (#37802784)

I look upon the inevitable Kindle conversion with a terrible dread. I'm typing it up in Google Docs, but because I use italics for emphasis, this means I have to either manually construct the book (and manually re-put in all my italics and formatting), or use a converter which will produce sucky output which will require a lot of manual cleanup...

Have you tried (say) Calibre's conversions? I've thrown random HTML files at it to create MOBI-format eBooks for my Kindle, and it's done a brilliant job, with no twiddling needed at all in most cases.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

Xugumad (39311) | about 3 years ago | (#37802832)

Both ePub and Mobipocket (which Kindle uses) are HTML based at the core already. Download your files from Google Docs as HTML, import into Sigil ( http://code.google.com/p/sigil/ [google.com] ) and you'll be 90% of the way towards an e-book.

All this refers to is Amazon adding more bits of HTML to the parts Kindle supports.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

Chad Stansbury (100803) | about 3 years ago | (#37803086)

[plug]You might want to try using Scriptito [scriptito.com] instead of Google docs, as it can directly export to EPUB and Kindle/MOBI format... and it's free.[/plug]

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

Pembers (250842) | about 3 years ago | (#37803104)

I have a novel on sale in the Kindle Store ( Death & Magic [amazon.com] , a murder mystery set in a school for wizards). I wrote it in OpenOffice.org, before I had any thought of releasing it as an ebook. When the time came to convert it, I exported it as HTML and used a text editor to get rid of all the crap that OO.o puts in just in case you want to re-import it and have it look something like it used to. This took a couple of evenings - I could probably have done it faster if I'd been braver with my regexs. It kept the italics without any problems. I put in some basic CSS to control the paragraph indents and make the chapter headings look nice.

I tried using Amazon's KindleGen program for converting the HTML to .mobi, but couldn't figure out how to fix all the compiler warnings. Then I found Mobipocket Creator [mobipocket.com] , which did everything I needed without any fuss, and produced a file that looked perfect on my Kindle. (Well - perfect apart from the known bugs in rendering, such as the way it won't add more than a certain amount of padding between words, so a line can look too short if there's a long word at the start of the next one.)

I learned my lesson - the book I'm writing now (volume 3 of the series) is starting life as HTML in a text editor, so I control exactly what formatting goes into it.

Let me know when your book's on the Kindle - it sounds like the sort of thing I might like.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | about 3 years ago | (#37803288)

(shameless plug coming up: if we're plugging stories feel free to go to my smashwords [smashwords.com] or amazon [amazon.com] profile and get hold of some stuff. there's two free stories on smashwords and the others are a dollar apiece because that seemed to be the cheapest amazon would let me sell things for (i wanted 40c or so). for some reason the amazon profile is currently missing The Train will Never Stop [amazon.com] , though it will be added in a day or so. the genre is basically fantasy of one form or another, though as far from sword and sorcery as i can get. i like to pretend there's more of a neil gaiman feel to things, but then i am very self-deluded.)

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37804596)

One advantage to going through a real publishing house is that an editor would remove 99% of your italics.

You want to break the mold, ignore the rules, do your own thing... go ahead. But sometimes conventional wisdom becomes conventional for a reason, and in the case of italics, I think most readers will agree. Used sparingly, they help something stand out, or compel a particular reading of a sentence.

But frequent use dulls their value, and it makes the sentences harder to read. Italics forces a re-parse. That's valuable, when you need it to compel a particular reading, but it grows tiresome very quickly. A well-crafted sentence doesn't need italics. The emphasis is part of the structure, both of that sentence and the whole rest of the paragraph.

Go ahead and get all e.e. cummings on us, and maybe you're breaking out a whole new style. But the odds are you'd be better off following the rules on that one and being novel with other aspects of your storytelling.

Re:Good News for Authors (1)

gozar (39392) | more than 2 years ago | (#37804894)

I'm surprised more people don't just type up their ebooks in any text format using Markdown [daringfireball.net] . Easy to write in whatever editor your have (for example, storing the manuscript in Dropbox, allowing one to write on their computer, their phone, their tablet, etc.) and then use Calibre to convert into whatever format you want.

Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37801850)

Is there a utility yet that converts all Flash (Actionscript, not just video and animations) into HTML5? Even if just enough to make a prototype for specifying how the human recoders finish the job, in less than 80% of the time to hand convert from scratch?

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

optimism (2183618) | about 3 years ago | (#37801944)

Who cares? The only useful applications of Flash are:

1) To provide a wrapper and controller for video-on-demand, until everyone has a web browser that natively supports low-bandwidth video formats.

2) To populate classrooms with a multitude of poor shmoes who are really excited to make some of that fancy-shmancy keyframe animated stuff, though they don't really know what they will use it for.

Flash died years ago. Most Flash content was dead on arrival. Let it go, and program your new stuff in HTML. Doesn't have to be HTML5. HTML4 is perfectly capable for most stuff.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (4, Interesting)

_merlin (160982) | about 3 years ago | (#37801982)

Flash lets designers build interactive content. Macromedia/Adobe got/gets designers, and too many people don't realise that. You may not be interested in it, but there are some gems buried in NewGrounds along with all the crap. None of the other solutions are accessible to designer types the way Flash is. I predict one of two things will happen: Flash will die, and this kind of creative content will die with it until a new challenger appears; or more likely, Flash will just refuse to dies, and the geek elite just won't understand why.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37802106)

Flash lets designers build interactive content. Macromedia/Adobe got/gets designers, and too many people don't realise that. You may not be interested in it, but there are some gems buried in NewGrounds along with all the crap. None of the other solutions are accessible to designer types the way Flash is. I predict one of two things will happen: Flash will die, and this kind of creative content will die with it until a new challenger appears; or more likely, Flash will just refuse to dies, and the geek elite just won't understand why.

What will happen is that Adobe will make its tools output formats other than just flash so they work on iPhones/iPads as well as Android devices: http://www.adobe.com/products/flash-builder.html

But, in the mean time, Flash will hang around for about as long as it took to get people to stop making their web sites only work correctly with Internet Explorer. (Speaking of which, how well is that process going?)

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37802156)

It seems like I'm already seeing adobe flash disappear. The virtual phone system my company uses from a hosted provider was rewritten from scratch in Adobe Flash. There was nothing that needed to be done in Adobe Flash. NOTHING. It was 10x worse in Adobe Flash. Long story short. The site went from working with cell phones and other devices to not working. It was bloated and slow even on the PC. Moving forward a couple of months - 12 months the site is now in HTML again. Hmmm I wonder why. Exactly the same shitty Adobe Flash design but in HTML. The phone system goes down every other day too by the way and is based on Microsoft infrastructure. I just wish I could find something based on a Linux/Unix infrastructure. There is a reason to outsource this stuff and it isn't just price. If someone realised that and would start going with SIP/Virtual Phone system for businesses I would switch. I already switched to another company that also is going to suck cause I can tell they are as or almost as incompetent. Still based on Microsoft infrastructure. I didn't realise that before signing up though. I couldn't find anybody with SIP + Virtual Phone on what appeared to be non-windows infrastructure. Well, at least not that I could hook up an ATA adapter to.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37803464)

Most SIP phone systems that work are based on Asterisk or FreeSwitch, and desktop ethernet phones instead of workstation GUIs. Though many still leave their admin interfaces in Flash.

They all kinda suck, but not so badly they can't be used. And not Microsoft suckage, anyway.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | about 3 years ago | (#37802178)

I don't view flash any more, haven't for a few years.

The only content I miss is video on some websites like the BBC which refuse to serve their video as video files, and graphics like the ones you mention at nytimes.com say ( though actually not many sites produce infographics worthy of the name).

Having graphic content in HTML is going to be a lot better for everyone (more accessible, easier to mash up, easier to extract data), and when adobe completes migrating their tools to produce HTML, there really will be no excuses left. Its actually pretty easy to build interactive content right now with HTML, but when the wysiwyg tools switch, all the laggards will switch with them.

Actually as a designer I'd say that adobe doesn't really get designers any more - their tools feel like quark in the 90's - entering a long slow decline where the marking department add useless features every year like Export for Microsoft word or magic repair features that could never work, while ignoring glaring ui inconsistencies, awful installers, and crashing bugs, and then gouge design departments for as much money as they can manage. The latest versions of their cs suites have been a disappointment to me for this reason. It feels like all the people who care about the quality of the products have left Adobe and Macromedia has been dead for years.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 3 years ago | (#37802180)

There is another thing to consider:

Proprietary platforms are not doing well. IIS is dead and dying. Most systems I run across using it are 3rd party CMS for time clocks, payroll, and patient record systems. It is costly to implement since it requires quite a bit of MS licensing to get off the ground, and (IMO) a developer premium to modify and extend the systems, if that is even possible.

There are still a lot of development firms and in-house coders doing ASP, .Net but those all have higher costs than Open Source once all things are considered. It is no coincidence that the majority of the world's websites are on Apache/Linux.

Internet Explorer 6 still exists mainly because the high costs of developing those systems in the first place has/is precluding their maintenance and upgrades because the companies can't fund the projects to do it. When possible they are seemingly, to me, switching out for open source platforms so they are not "held hostage" like they were before.

It's hard to get a new IIS/ASP based website/system approved when an equivalent PHP/Javascript website/system running on Linux/Apache will get the job done just as nicely and have access to a heck of a lot more open source code. Not to mention future maintenance is easier since I am pretty sure there are quite a few more developers out there for PHP and Javascript than there are for MS proprietary platforms.

So unless you are part of die hard MS group, you are not going to be choosing IIS any time soon for a new project.... not by a long shot.

How is this relevant to Flash?

Just today I was looking for a plug in to do something on a project and ran across something that looked fairly interesting, but required a bunch of Flash. I turned down specifically because of Flash.

I am not interested in proprietary platforms at this point, which includes Flash when a little extra searching usually allows me to find something else. After about another 10 minutes of searching I came across a plug in which supported IE 6.0+, Chrome, Safari, and Firefox and did not require flash, or any other dependencies outside of what was already included in JQuery.

So why would I choose Flash at this point?

Adobe knows this. They are preparing to abandon Flash. From what I have been hearing Adobe is very hard at work to make a solid product to create interactive content without Flash, but HTML5 instead. PDF is embedded in business deeper than fax machines at this point at they know it. They want everybody that uses Adobe on a daily basis to create content and systems to be able to continue to do so. Transitioning away from Flash only makes sense for them in the long run.

Adobe is not alone either. Microsoft has already thrown in the towel on Silverlight. Both of those companies can see the writing on the wall... and that is the future will be open standards and open source. In order to keep their positions they are both going to develop tools not tied to their proprietary platforms, although I predict Adobe will be far more successful.

Flash is dying. It is going to die because of the developers and business considerations when choosing what platform to develop on don't predispose somebody, that is open minded, to choose proprietary systems when open source is so much cheaper and having a website that is simple means the users need far less installed on their systems and browsers to make it work.

I'm sorry.... the days of me having to install several ActiveX controls just to gain access to a site/system are coming to an end. That includes Flash too.

I don't think it is an exaggeration either. I surf with a Flash blocker all the time. It is getting less and less frequent that I have to click on a Flash object to enable it. Even on major websites like CNN.com, it has become noticeably less frequent when it used to be Flash heavy on pretty much everything.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

optimism (2183618) | about 3 years ago | (#37802272)

Macromedia/Adobe got/gets designers, and too many people don't realise that.

Actually...Macromedia/Adobe built their businesses by "getting" wannabe designers.

You know, folks who think they can just buy a copy of Director/Flash/Dreamweaver/Photoshop/Premiere/etc, take a couple of classes at the community college, and be a "designer".

fwiw...I was using Flash when it was FutureSplash Animator, back before MM acquired it in the mid-1990s. I really enjoyed Flash too, doing interactive animations with physics, flocking behaviors, etc. But I'm not sentimental about it.

Professional designers have either the breadth of skills to take on whatever tools will do the job, or the depth of skill that they can partner with professional tool developers. The specific tools are irrelevant to the professional designer. Deployment is what matters, and ubiquitous open standards (eg HTML & JavaScript) will always win on that front.

However, Macromedia/Adobe figured out that wannabe designers are a much larger market than professional designers.

I predict one of two things will happen: Flash will die, and this kind of creative content will die with it until a new challenger appears; or more likely, Flash will just refuse to dies, and the geek elite just won't understand why.

Flash will live as long as Adobe can sell copies of the dev tool to folks who take (or teach) community-college or art-school classes in how to use it.

From a professional and real-world deployment perspective, the only thing keeping Flash alive is the video codec. Microsoft has already tried to chip away at this with their Silverlight plug-in. But both are doomed as soon as enough people have web browsers with decent video codecs (eg WebM) built-in.

Making HTML5 animations how? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37804990)

Professional designers have either the breadth of skills to take on whatever tools will do the job, or the depth of skill that they can partner with professional tool developers.

So what "professional tool developers" have published an SVG-animation or canvas-animation creation tool that approaches the capability of even Flash from a decade ago?

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 3 years ago | (#37802402)

Macromedia/Adobe got/gets designers, and too many people don't realise that.

Even assuming this is entirely correct, Adobe is planning to produce authoring tools for HTML5 directly. As for existing content...

You may not be interested in it, but there are some gems buried in NewGrounds along with all the crap.

NewGrounds is hardly the reason Flash won't die. If it was just Newgrounds, well, hey, there are some gems buried in platform-specific native game binaries -- and not all of these are Windows, mind you, there are some real gems which ran on Mac OS 9. It's an issue, but it's not a point against moving forward to a viable replacement -- especially something like HTML, which is going to be a hello f a lot more future-proof than Flash.

Flash will die, and this kind of creative content will die with it until a new challenger appears; or more likely, Flash will just refuse to dies, and the geek elite just won't understand why.

So, of this, option one is a lot more likely. Flash refuses to die right now largely because of video, and it's being steadily replaced there. There are a few niche places where Flash can still do things HTML5 can't -- right now, audio strikes me as most likely, and even that is being addressed -- but it will eventually die.

In the mean time...

None of the other solutions are accessible to designer types the way Flash is.

If you're more than a one-man Newgrounds operation, it doesn't actually matter that much. You know what designers are good at? Designing. There's a reason Flash has a reputation for being slow and buggy as hell, a constant CPU drain, etc. Some of this is Flash's own fault, I'm sure, and I can back this up by comparing YouTube's performance with Flash versus any native player on the same video file. Most of it is enabling designers to attempt to program, with similar results to enabling executives to attempt to program in Excel.

The same tools will eventually come to HTML5, and I'm alright with that. Please don't take this as an elitist stance of, "Leave programming to the professionals." All I'm saying is that if the existing stuff isn't accessible to you, some of that is because it's overly complex, but a lot of it is because you aren't a programmer. There's no reason you couldn't be, and many designers do make that leap (or simply team up with a programmer). But you do have to invest some time in learning something about how computers actually think.

To put it another way, I don't think I would be taken seriously if I attempted to do serious design work with MS Paint. There are tools [ragemaker.net] which let me easily throw together a comic, but I don't think this [imgur.com] compares with this [questionablecontent.net.] or this [smbc-comics.com] . These aren't the best examples of either, but honestly, if the ragecomics went up in smoke, I really couldn't care. That's kind of how I feel about Flash, especially when it's used by designers.

If you're neither willing to learn some real programming or work with a real programmer, then I'm not sure I will miss the loss of your content. If you are willing to do either, then I have to imagine that Flash vs HTML5 isn't a huge issue.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37802052)

Lame bullshit.

Use the right tool for the right job.

Need to build an "interactive" web page (e.g. slashdot.org) or some site that is primarily for disseminating information (blogs, news sites, etc.)? Throw in some HTML/JS

Need to build a serious rich internet application? Considering something designed for that purpose: Flash/Flex, Silverlight, etc.

It's great that "everyone" knows HTML5 will replace flash for video. Generally the people who think that Flash is used only for video and crappy ads are people who have never seriously undertook the creation of anything more complex than a MySpace page.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37802074)

I've never seen a web site built in Flash that was anything other than a slow, bloated piece of crap.

Any time I go to a web site and it says I'm going to have to spend five minute sitting at the 'Loading Flash Crap' animation I find something more useful to do with my time.

Just let the damn thing die.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37802114)

Flash isn't mean for websites.

Flash/Flex is meant for web applications.

If you don't understand the difference, then this conversation is way over your head.

For example, Prezi (http://prezi.com/) is something I use quite often for presentations (beats the crap out of the "cram some text and clipart on a slide like you're using a 1950s projector, wee!)

Now, you *could* do something like that in HTML/JS, but it would take several times the manpower and several times the cost due to cross browser defects, shitty ECMAscript implementation standards, poorly refined JS APIs and a multitude of other annoyances that add up to an overall shitty dev environment compared to Flash/Flex (which has it's own damn problems, but is light years ahead of the HTML/JS quagmire in respect to building a decent design/dev environment).

Hence, Prezi is built in Flash/Flex. However, only the Prezi application is Flash/Flex -- their webpage is ... *gasp* ... built using webpage tools!

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | about 3 years ago | (#37802200)

I love people who use the word serious to describe what they do ( and by implication consider other approaches non-serious and unworthy of attention). If you can get over your disdain for the rest of the world you might find there are good reasons to avoid locking your content in a binary shell. You can stay in your silverlight/flash binary ghetto if you want, but in the meantime lots of people are building the most popular websites on the web without flash using a huge variety of tools but delivering plain old HTML- those websites don't need flash, silverlight or any other plugins ( though typically they use it for trivial stuff like ads, if at all), and yet they serve most of the content on the web. I guess they aren't serious though.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37802564)

Like I said, if your primary purpose is to serve information with a little bit of interactivity (e.g. the vast majority of the content on the web) then HTML is great -- that's what it was designed for!

However, if your primary purpose is to build an interactive application similar to something that would exist on the desktop, then HTML and JavaScript start becoming less useful -- because they weren't designed for that! The closest thing available in that realm is Google's GWT -- but they still haven't got their shit together enough to employ a declarative language for layout (that works) -- so you're still writing imperative code to generate declarative HTML. It's completely bass acwards and about several times slower than necessary to develop.

And yes, a "serious" web application (NOT a webpage) requires a lot more than HTML/JS can currently reasonably and *efficiently* provide. I can (and do) design and implement apps in Flex in a fraction of the time it would take with the sloppy mess that results when you have a "huge variety of tools" that were never designed for the purpose of RIA and don't work together nearly as well. These applications are "serious" because they are expected to provide the ability for users to efficiently and correctly input non trivial data like GIS (map) data, scientific data, financials data and other similarly "serious" subjects. They aren't just glorified message boards like Facebook.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 years ago | (#37802614)

bass acwards

You misspelled bass ackwards. /dyslexic spelling nazi

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37805280)

they still haven't got their shit together enough to employ a declarative language for layout (that works) -- so you're still writing imperative code to generate declarative HTML.

Would it be possible to make a declarative language for layout on top of JSON? If so, you could write the imperative code to fill a DOM once and then just write declarative layout in your JSON markup after that.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37803484)

Your username is "Serious Callers Only". I "love" irony.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37803446)

I care. I've got a large old Flash program that I want to convert, because Flash is indeed "dead". Its interactive features are HTML5 features which would be much more work in HTML4.

Why would you think I want to keep Flash, if I'm asking for a converter to get rid of it? You have a one track Flash-hating mind.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

optimism (2183618) | more than 2 years ago | (#37805702)

I care. I've got a large old Flash program that I want to convert, because Flash is indeed "dead".

Sorry. My reply was inappropriate for your question...and yes, I was expressing some of my historical exasperation (call it hate if you prefer) with the unfortunate fate that Flash was used for anything except the keyframe animations for which it was originally designed.

To answer your question: No, there is no generic Flash-to-DHTML converter.

As someone who has used both Flash and DHTML from their very beginnings, I can state with 99.9% confidence that a general-purpose converter will never be created. To make such a converter, you would have to re-implement the entire ancient & gnarly Flash runtime engine in JavaScript. From a platform perspective, that is mostly possible, even in HTML4, but it would be an enormous task. Afaik, no one has a business case that would remotely cover the expense.

If your "large old Flash program" was implemented in Flex, you have a much better chance of sponsoring a converter project. The Flex framework is much higher-level, with XML descriptors of the UI, but it provides a subset of the functionality already implemented in DHTML frameworks like SmartClient (www.smartclient.com). So a converter is entirely possible, orders of magnitude easier than a generic Flash-spaghetti-code to JavaScript converter.

Its interactive features are HTML5 features which would be much more work in HTML4.

Not if you build on a high-level RIA framework that has been around for many years. See e.g. the smartclient link above to get a sense of what has been possible for many years now. You may be surprised.

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803924)

3) Recording audio or video from the client. Flash is quietly enabling things like Google's voice recognition tools, for example.

4) Actually doing vector animation at a reasonable frame rate and bandwidth. Video is terrible at this for bandwidth reasons, and HTML5 canvas is terrible for frame rate reasons, not to mention the insane overuse of the CPU.

5) Allowing developers to make complex interactive games and applications without having to deal with all the gotchas of cross-browser oddities. New versions of browsers are constantly introducing regressions or breaking workarounds, so that the maintenance effort of keeping web software working is ridiculous. Flash games and apps written years and years ago still work perfectly. Care to guess whether similar HTML apps today will do the same?

Vector animation: who needs it? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37805032)

Actually doing vector animation at a reasonable frame rate and bandwidth. Video is terrible at this for bandwidth reasons

I'm aware that converting vector .swf to .mp4 bloats the file size by a factor of roughly ten, and I've repeatedly brought this up in comments to Slashdot stories. But ardent Flash haters like to remind me that we're no longer in the dial-up days, and networks and codecs have improved to squeeze 240p video even over a last-gen cell phone connection. So what should I say to make these haters remember caps?

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803068)

http://www.google.com/doubleclick/studio/swiffy/

Re:Real SWF - HTML5 Converter (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 3 years ago | (#37803534)

Thanks, bra.

Do you know how well Swiffy works on a Flash client to a Flex app, not just a Flash animation/movie/game? What doesn't it do right?

And what about Adobe's Wallaby - is Swiffy any more complete a porting tool? Because Wallaby can't convert much more than a .FLA movie.

Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (3, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about 3 years ago | (#37802122)

I had a Kindle for a while, and it does what it is supposed to admirably. This new book format is bound to do things even better, which is great.

But everyone else seems to be using ePub. Libraries use ePub too. Which really means that if you buy a Kindle you're stuck in the Amazon ecosystem. Well, unless you find a publisher that is willing to use unprotected PDF or MOBI files. That sometimes happens for the books you buy. But that won't happen for libraries (which need some sort of DRM).

And libraries are a serious concern for me. The ebook/digial audio book section is already confusing enough with device support.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (1)

iamnobody2 (859379) | about 3 years ago | (#37802584)

overdrive is working with amazon to provide library content, many libraries already have it. also kindle users are not "stuck" in the amazon ecosystem anymore then ipod users are "stuck" in the itunes ecosystem. i have several hundred books on my kindle, and haven't bought any from amazon.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (1)

am 2k (217885) | about 3 years ago | (#37802638)

also kindle users are not "stuck" in the amazon ecosystem anymore then ipod users are "stuck" in the itunes ecosystem.

Not quite. I can take the AACs I bought on iTunes and play them on any music player/operating system that supports the format. I can't do that with ebooks from Amazon.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (1)

yahwotqa (817672) | about 3 years ago | (#37803064)

Getting ebooks from Amazon? That's crazy talk! Kindle is purely for reading ebooks obtained elsewhere.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803714)

You can, however, run the Kindle app on a Mac, a PC, a iOS device, an Android device, or the web, so the only people who are left out are those who want to buy Amazon ebooks to read them on a non-Kindle eInk reader and yet don't have the technical skill to strip the DRM.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803126)

My local library lets me borrow books to my Kindle. So please stop lying or spreading FUD.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803260)

Amazon just in the last few months started a program with libraries to provide eBooks. If your library uses OverDrive (which a lot do) then there is a good chance that you can get Amazon format eBooks.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803494)

You've been able to check out Kindle books from libraries for a while now.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37803726)

My library has ePub AND Kindle formats.

Re:Sorry, but this is a PITA ... (1)

radish (98371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803898)

I'm reading a Kindle book from my library right now - Overdrive now support Kindle for all their ebooks.

jersey (0)

jersey123456 (2485408) | about 3 years ago | (#37802234)

With their being so many teams it is vital to offer a variety of the teams to your customers. ,Buying in bulk Not only do manufacturers buy in bulk when making the NFL football jerseys and cheap NFL throwback jerseys, but also when they sell NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] Larry Fitzgerald Jersey them in bulk to distributors, they are able to give a good price which suits their customers. reebok nfl jerseys ,Quality of materials Lower quality materials, even cottons Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] and buttons can affect the price of cheap NFL jerseys.Buy a cheap jersey through internet marketing. cheap nhl jerseys ,NFL jerseys are in great demand in the US with many fans giving their support of all the National Football Teams of the NFL.Bulk buy Replica vs authenticity Manufacturing costs When locating a supplier you will find that many are based in China where the manufacturing costs are far less than in western countries.Wearing these jerseys is not only a way to show support during a match but Adrian Wilson Jersey also part of everyday life for many active football fans, who wish to how who they support. wholesale nfl MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] jerseys ,Cheap NFL Replica Jerseys Replica NFL jerseys are NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] cheap because they do not need to go through the licensing and payment of royalties to the NFL Football League and their teams.Since licenses and royalties account for a great percentage of the cost of the actual jersey many distributors and manufacturers try to skip this process as buying fabrics and other materials at increasingly better Marion Barber Jersey prices is becoming difficult.These are often found to be preferable to buyers from the US.Of course the result is a less durable but cheap NFL football jersey.

Simple translation from the fucking article "TFA" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37803386)

With this new format Amazon will force an update onto all Kindles breaking old compatibility. Once updated people will be forced to repurchase all of their old books again, resulting in costs that could exceed ten thousand US dollars just to keep their collection. Plus the new DRM will prevent people from breaking the DRM. Forget ebooks of any kind as ebooks are for the sheeple that say "Baaa, shiny. Must have that." Stick with traditional paper based books. Traditional books have No DRM or anything else to hinder reading, unlike ebooks.

HTML5? Not Really (1)

DERoss (1919496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37803860)

Per a discussion in the comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroup, not all of HTML5 is supported in Kindle. See the Subject "HTML5 on Kindle - Not really html5?" at news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html [authoring.html] .

Time to buy a new Kindle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37805682)

Amazon's site about Kindle 8 indicates it will roll out with the Kindle Fire and transition to current generation devices over the next few months. As usual, Amazon seems to expect us to buy new a new Kindle every time they update something, even something as trivial as page numbers.

Don't get me wrong, I love Amazon and I love my Kindle, but this burns my craw. I mean, we're talking about what is, in essence, a freaking text file. You mean to tell me my old device, which can render PDF documents, cannot handle a little HTML? I mean, it isn't like the profit is in the darned devices, either.

Screensavers for Kindle! (1)

ZapoTeX (2491538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37805728)

The Kindle is a great device! No matter the format they choose, it'll be possible to switch to/from it with Calibre. And hopefully, we can also change the screensavers on our Kindles: http://www.kubizo.com/changing-kindle-screensaver.php [kubizo.com] Ciao!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?