[bksvol-discuss] Re: question: Re: page breaks
- From: Mike Pietruk <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:19:33 -0500 (EST)
Shelley
I am certain that hq has stats as to which format is more used.
Having said that, even if daisy happened to be more used than .brf, that
still doesn't mean that a Daisy player is used to read the books.
.htm files come from the Daisy downloads; so does .opf which K1000 gladly
works with, et al.
Daisy players may be one of the means folks use to read their books,
Guido, but it is hardly the only one and may not even be the primary one.
Perhaps what we need is some sort of an indication within the book info
indicating which titles are Daisy compliant so folks who prefer or require
that format know what they can download.
Trying to force this guideline into existence isn't going to get more
scanners to comply as most of them scan for their own benefit and hardly
will instantly change their approach to meet some guideline that they
either aren't aware of or don't understand.
And the amount of ill will generated by scanners who have their
submissions rejected for bureaucratic reasons will far exceed the
complaints problem titles cause.
As I said before, I am far more troubled by a 500+ validation pool being
the norm or it sometimes taking weeks for a validated book to clear the
final administrative acceptance step.
A lot of valuable books aren't in user's hands because of these two items;
and administrative attention should be directed towards figuring long-term
solutions to these bottlenecks.
And, from a user vantage point, cutting back on the number of submissions
is not the solution I like.
Other related posts:
