From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Links in the HARDWARE READING SYSTEMS section[edit]

Is it just ME? I should imagine we should at least MENTION the Amazon Kindle in this section (where all its competitors are listed/linked)since the Kindle is the most successful and widely-owned electronic book reader device to date. In anticipation of protest, I must observe the B&N Nook can only address content purchased from B&N while the Kindle will read all mobi-formatted material, supports owner creation of content with free conversion to .azw, and permits import of mobi files from any vendor on the web. Is this merely another "oversight" or has the main article been subject to industrial sabotage by omission/deletion? Just asking.Westernesse (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about the EPUB format. The Kindle doesn't support the EPUB format, so it doesn't get listed here. - MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Just as MrOllie said. Quillaja (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Links in the readers section[edit]

A few links there shouldn't be links, likely. At the very least, Dorian (Symbian reader)points to a DA page that doesn't have a link for it at all, and readme points to a readme file wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the report. I have diverted those two links from the inappropriate destinations so that they appear red, to suggest that someone should write articles about the readers. (I do not know the subject well enough to write them myself.) Certes (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Added information request[edit]

I would dearly like to know in a brief outline

  • an outline how epub works
  • can the books be moved to other computers?
  • What happens when the book falls out of copyright?


--Joewski (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I will probably answer (most of) your questions as I (slowly) work on this article. However, for the time being, I'll give you a simple answer. ePub is basically just xhtml and CSS, like a web page. A compliant ePub reader has to implement certain requirements so that things look good. You can move non-DRM ePubs and make copies as much as you want. I'm not sure on the details of DRMed ePubs, but I think you can move the file around, but only open and view it on certain registered devices. I suppose that if you have an ePub file, and the book falls out of copyright, the file remains as it was before--but that's just a guess. Quillaja (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sony Adopts ePub[edit]

Perhaps someone would like to add this information to the article (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC) And this one:

some proposed changes[edit]

Unless anyone objects, I want to make some revisions and additions to this article. For example, adding sections to describe the history of epub, adding more detail about what is actually in an epub, cleaning up the lists of software/hardware, etc. If anyone has any other ideas, please discuss them here. Thanks. Quillaja (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made some major additions to this article in the last few days. I've added a "file format" section and some sub-sections to describe details about the EPUB format, using the specifications as the reference. I've also added some additional information on DRM and Validation. There's a new "Criticisms" section too. I tried to find some decent sources to back up some of the various criticisms I've read about on the interwebs.
All-in-all, I think I've done a pretty thorough job, but I'd appreciate an proofreading and fact checking that other people could do. Thanks. Quillaja (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted OS section[edit]

I deleted the "Operating System" section, which only contained a line for "OpenInkpot". This is an OS for ebook readers, and should be in that article, not this article. Quillaja (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

iPad's relation to ePub[edit]

The development of the iPad is basically unrelated to epub as a file format and ebook standard. As such, any mention of it in this article should be the same as any other device--mentioning it in the "Devices" section. Quillaja (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with half your statement above - that direct mentions of the iPad should be limited to devices. But "development of the iPad is basically unrelated to epub as a file format and ebook standard" kind of glosses over the impact of hype and notoriety the format gains by being part of the Apple Inc. theatre. That is nontrivial and pushes .epub to the front of the pack for adoption.jk (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

the criticism about DRM not being specified[edit]

The lack of a specified DRM in EPUB is, in fact, a criticism of the format for the reason given. There are sources listed.

Previously, the "many people" was marked with {{who?}}, which was correct. I intended to fix the problem and, I hoped, to provide more sources, though I haven't had the time recently. So, soon I hope to do this, stating that this issue with EPUB is a criticism. Objections? Quillaja (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have since added a number of additional sources that discuss this issue. It was a bit difficult to find sources to back this up before, but the announcement of the iPad has gotten more people writing about it. Quillaja (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Limitations of the standard[edit]

The limitations of the standard is briefly mentioned (for technical books). Does epub have the capability to display mathematical equations like integrals etc? (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The epub format doesn't currently have any provisions for displaying mathematics "natively". To quote the charter for the version 2.1 working group "No native support for mathematics. The lack of a native schema to represent mathematical equations (MathML) limits applicability and interoperability of eBook in the textbook and academic publishing segments." Quillaja (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One criticism of EPUB is that, while good for text-centric books, it is unsuitable for publications which require precise layout or contain advanced formatting. Examples of such publications are comic books and technical books.

I do not believe this criticism is justified for technical books. The "advanced formatting" wording is ambiguous, and the examples should be limited to comic books, which is the only topic the reference source includes. Many technical publishers were among the first to adopt ePub, and O'Reilly Media publishes nearly every single new and old title in an ePub version. So do the Pragmatic Programmers, another popular technical publisher. Abdelazer (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience reading O'Reilly's epub books, but they are largely programming, books, right? That means they are still largely text. The fact that they may look nicely formatted is a testament to O'Reilly's commitment to ebooks and care in publication, but I don't think it negates the assertion that epub has problems with "advanced formatting". However, I will agree completely that the wording "advanced formatting" is ambiguous and that the cited source may be inadequate to prove this point. I welcome you clarify the wording or provide more sources. Quillaja (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ReAdded video link[edit]

I just inserted my video link previously reverted by Ckatz (talk) where he removed a link to an educational video tutorial specifically about the .epub format with resources found no where else. Video: Format overview of the .epub file I invite him and the community to discuss further reversions here. jk (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: link removed per WP:EL; discussion comments changed from "keep" to "add" to reflect action under discussion --Ckatzchatspy 23:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Add because this educational video tutorial is specifically about the .epub format with resources found no where else jk (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Add tentative The idea of linking to YouTube isn't something that's generally a good idea, I think, but for now and in this case, I don't think it does any harm. Also, It's pretty well-made video made to give a brief overview of ePub. In a way, it's not really any different than linking to other ePub construction tutorials. However, one or 2 such links are all the article needs. If linking gets out of hand, we'll have to moderate more. Quillaja (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to find wikipolicy about Youtube. Where are links to dynamic media discouraged?jk (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not specifically discouraged, but not encouraged either. However, you have to be very careful about linking to videos infringing on copyright, which are abundant on YouTube. However, that doesn't really apply here. The guidelines do say not to link to things requiring plugins and such, but who the heck can't watch YouTube videos? Anyway, it's my feeling that linking to YouTube is generally not a great idea simply because there's soooo much crap there that could be linked to. Wikipedia isn't an index of links. Furthermore, it's easy enough to find videos using Google's or YouTube's search functionality. Quillaja (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Well put, sir! Here is the link to YouTube policy. So far I can't find ANY videos anywhere that describe the guts of an .epub. This vid improves the article as an excerpt and digest and puts the pieces in a visual metaphor. jk (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I am for tentatively allowing the link. However, if the video link is being added to many other articles, as Ckatz mentions, then I'd consider it "spam". This video is really only appropriate as a link on this page. Quillaja (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The other article is Comparison_of_e-book_formats because the vid addresses the way Kindle does not accept .epub or other free and open formats. jk (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep out per WP:EL; note that the contributor is seeking to add this link to several articles, not just this one; why is this link any more deserving than oterh avaiable links? A better choice would be to link to the Open Directory service (per the linking guidelines) and then let anyone post their links to that site.) --Ckatzchatspy 23:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please be bold in your edits. If you think your ideas will improve the article, then why not make the edit? Find other more deserving links and also link to Open Directory. Bravo. As for adding the link to two articles, the author felt it was appropriate in both places - specific and general formats. jk (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to policy regarding summary deletion of YouTube links. Your second revert should have waited for consensus after my invitation to Talk. Your original revert should have included more detail. Your second revert was likewise too brief "once again; not suitable." Please consider more judicious use of double reverts and address substantial issues such as infringement, commercial, reliability of the source. Again, I have deep respect for your work on the project; and you are moving too fast to remove well-considered contributions.

Edit war[edit]

I'm going to add the video link for now. Having the video link is not harmful or superfluous at this point. Yes, it's a video on JK's channel made by him...but where else would he upload it? I think his intentions are honest and that he's not simply trying to get hits for his video. This edit war is stupid and unproductive. Quillaja (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Q. But if Ckatz feels this strongly it warrants more discussion. A debate here on the discussion page is appropriate. A debate in edit summaries wastes everyone's time and seems beneath an admin. If I could upload the video directly to the Media Commons with a fully permissive license I would. Ckatz needs to slow down and take a broader view. jk (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Epub[edit]

Why is it spelled "EPUB" on the page? Who cares if that spelling is "preferred by the vendor"? If their preferred spelling were "EPUB!!!!" would you go along with that?

This business of all caps, intercaps, exclamation marks, etc. just because some marketing sleazoid thought it clever is a pile of crap. I think we all (including Wikipedia) should ignore all such nonsense and just spell proper nouns in the traditional way: an initial cap followed by all lower case.

If the IDPF chose "EPUB!!!!!111" as the name of the format, then yes, we would go along with it. I personally dislike that capitalization, and prefer "ePub", but that's not how it is. Other people (ie websites, etc) use "ePub", "ePUB", or "ePUB", which is why alternative capitalizations are listed at the beginning of the article. Quillaja (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems wrong to suggest that EPUB is "preferred" when the logo (which clearly must have been "preferred" by the same people) is clearly rendered "ePUB" (with a lowercase "e" in green and "PUB" in dark brown)...? Is the logo on this article unofficial? -- (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The logo shown is the official logo. If you check the IDPF's website, you'll see they continue to capitalize as "EPUB". I'll agree that the difference between the logo and their preferred spelling is odd, but it is what it is. Quillaja (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

EPUB or EPUP[edit]

In the table of Reading Systems & Software, on the Mobipocket row far right column (Notes) the article says:

Converts ePUP into .PRC on import

Is it supposed to say Converts ePUB into .PRC on import. Ileanadu (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that looks just like a typo. I've corrected it. Quillaja (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

EPub as a Format for Use in Institutional Repositories?[edit]

See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit reverted .[edit]

Hello , I have made a revision to add my software to conversion from comics image to Epub validated file . Yesterday I have made a mistake ( first time in wikipedia ) and added the link to my website . Of course you have deleted the entry and I understand the policy so nothing to tell.

Today I have reedited the page and inserted only the name of the software with no link or other . This is the code I have added | Comics2Reader || Windows || Conversion tool for comics. Freeware. |- As you can see the entry have no link , minimal description and not have any kind of advertise or promotion . Only the software name and is purpose . Comics2Reader convert from comics image to Epub. Is freeware .Have a purpose different from every other editor in the list 'til now .

I don't understand why is the last entry was deleted . Can someone tell me what is the rule of wikipedia I've breaked this time ?

Thanks in advance Mauro

Missing software[edit]

Is there some reason why the Sony Reader Library, Nook application, etc. which work perfectly well as readers aren't listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfmclean (talkcontribs) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably just no one ever thought to add them. You are welcome to add them yourself. Quillaja (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

List of publishers?[edit]

Would it be useful to have a list of publishers who use the format in this article? Hcobb (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi! I wrote a module for a CMS called Efiction, which creates EPUB books from stories posted to the CMS. Would it be ok for me to add a link to my module called ePubVersion to the EPUB EDITING/CREATION section?

I use Asbjorn Grand's PHP class to create the EPUB books, and a combination of TIDY and HTMLPurifier to get XHTML compliant content from the source.

KirstynF (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing Systems[edit]

Scrivener's Windows edition does not produce either epub or mobi files. The documentation says it does, but they've just used the Apple docs for the Windows version. In short, Scrivener is not a Windows epub editor. James Galloway (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If so, please correct the article. Quillaja (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

More discussion of DRM.[edit]

Is there any policy restriction regarding adding brief information about DRM removal? Both under the DRM heading, and under the software tools? Elsewhere on Wikipedia, for example Windows_Media_DRM, these tools are discussed explicitly. This is relevant, because DRM removal is necessary to allow users to convert EPUBs into supported formats for their devices. For example, to allow Kindle owners to read library books, which are typically EPUB and must be DRM stripped and converted to MOBI. Pjwst6 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparison table[edit]

This table really needs work. The color scheme for is way off—I would say flat out backwards, as DRM is anathema to Wikimedia—although I would settle for a neutral grayscale. Also, the software licenses need to be listed too. I may fix this if I have time. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing non-notable software from table?[edit]

In a stand-alone list, only Wikipedia articles are allowed. But this list is an embedded list, hence it may contain non-notable software too, given the following conditions: Meeting with both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Good article criteria. From one angle, an article may contain a small list of non-notable software simply to be broad in coverage. A small list of software can add extra credibility to the subject of the article. (Though source is still required.) From another, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor it is an advertisement platform. So, if the number of software which do the article subject's bidding is large, we list the notable ones instead.

If you feel I am wrong please feel free to correct me.

Oh, and one more thing. "CoolReader" is currently the subject of discussion in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 3‎‎, so for the time being, it should stay put. Fleet Command (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This list, like a lot of lists, attracts a lot of single purpose accounts who seem to be here to promote software. I'm fine with any sort of objective standard for inclusion that can be agreed to. Notability is a good one, independent sourcing is another. The entries I removed had neither. - MrOllie (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, you are right on that account. I guess your edit summary diverted my attention and I didn't see that. As for independent sourcing, I wouldn't go as far as that for a small list; though this list is not small. As for advertisers, they are everywhere. So, disregard your fear of them. When they come, we will deal with them accordingly. So, as long as you delay the removal of CoolReader (until RfD ends), I guess we have consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
When I wrote the bulk of the content of this article, I table-ized the pre-existing list of EPUB reading software and hardware, but decided myself to take a hands-off approach to maintaining it. My opinion, however, is that only the most notable software and hardware should be included, and if there were to exist on wikipedia a 'comprehensive' list of such software and hardware, it should be in a separate list article. The fact is that writing "EPUB reading software" is extremely easy, and there are so many no-name readers out there now.
Furthermore, in addition to notability, another potential criteria to use would be if the software is for reading only, or if it's a "conversion" program. Technically a conversion program is a 'reader' since it reads the file, but its purpose isn't to display the content to a user. I would suggest that lists of readers be exclusive to programs which have "good" utility in terms of displaying books. The best edge case I can think of here is Calibre, which is obviously well-known, but is largely used as a conversion and library program, although it does have reading functionality. Quillaja (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Text color locking?[edit]

I have a non-DRM epub which I've converted to mobi format and the text color is locked to black. Never had that problem with any other epub. How is that feature set in epub and how can it be disabled in an epub file? Bizzybody (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably just some style set by the creator in the epub's CSS. Change the .epub extension to .zip, then you can explore the contents and view the CSS stylesheet to confirm. By the way, this isn't a help forum. Quillaja (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Initial / Latest Release Data[edit]

Something is wrong with the dates - Initial release Octobre 2011 Latest release 3.0 / October 11, 2010

Fixed, thank you. Vt100 (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove iBooks Author?[edit]

While iBooks Author is worth talking about in any EPUB conversation, it doesn't actually produce EPUBs so I think it is appropriate to remove it from the "editing systems" list. Now that the product has been out for a few weeks and understood, many sources agree that IBA cannot save a EPUB file. Even if the extension is changed from ".ibooks" to ".epub", the file contains proprietary markup that prevents even a simple document from being edited in other EPUB-compliant tools. Thoughts? --Ds13 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps, in that turn one could remove the link to this incredibly biased article, written by a mindbogglingly greedy author, who complains, the commercial use of a program distributed free of charge is restricted and compares it to a commercial program (MS Word) where such restrictions in deed would be evil.--BerlinSight (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

External Link[edit]

Can somebody remove a bad link under External Link of this is bad site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compliance-Expert (talkcontribs) 04:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


The article states that the standard is free and open. I note that the specification is copyrighted, but I do not find any information about a license for the standard. Is there a license? If not, how does one know that it is free and open? Fotoguzzi (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I also cannot find any licensing information on IDPF's website. I assume because the standard is based on the old Open Book format and used 3 open standards in epub 2.0 people assume it's open. It seems very strange to me. --Fozz Dog (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not enough criticism[edit]

The entire article is singing praises to this format, and not criticises its deficient and intentionally complicated design. Someone needs to fix it. (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

EPUB vs FB2[edit]

Any info on difference between epub vs the less known, Russian fb2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal (talkcontribs) 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Math support[edit]

The description of EPUB#Version 3.0 (current version) says

A major issue hindering the use of EPUB for most technical publications is the lack of support for equations formatted as MathML. They are currently included as bitmap or SVG images, precluding proper handling by screen readers and interaction with computer algebra systems. Support for MathML is included in the EPUB 3.0 specification.

In searching for info about the EPUB format (because a friend recommended it to me), I also saw this at a site called MathJax:

EPUB readers
With EPUB3, MathML has become part of the EPUB standard. Many EPUB reading systems use Webkit or Gecko to render the EPUB content. This means they face the same (lack of) MathML support as browsers.
MathJax enables EPUB reading systems to overcome these limitations without having to wait for the browser development to catch up.

The article should mention, and possibly list, this and any other systems that may exist for supporting math in EPUB.

--Thnidu (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentally, after posting the above comment I have just seen MathJax used in a Cornell University Library abstract via arXiv: HD 106906 b: A planetary-mass companion outside a massive debris disk, Vanessa Bailey et al., 4 Dec 2013 18:11:41 GMT. --Thnidu (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Okular? No way![edit]

Just installed this lousy thing and it doesn't even open epub files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

article's text error[edit]

at v3 criticisms say "... lack of support for equations formatted as MathML" then say "Support for MathML is included in the EPUB 3.0 specification."


Annotations and Highlights[edit]

Is there a common way to store annotations and highlights? I heard that Adobe introduced .annot files, that is used by Kobo and Mantano?-- (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You should also note that there is a draft of open annotation in epub, according to [1].-- (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

An example file structure:[edit]


aren't there some files missing in the sample? Like the ncx?

Regards (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Open Format and EPUB®[edit]

I don't understand why Epub is called and <<open format>> and goes with the ® symbol in the IDPF website (<<The key IDPF standard is EPUB®, the current version is EPUB 3.0.1.>>, can someone explain it to me ?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

EPUB cannot be read by Kindle Fire[edit]

See introduction: re. EPEUB can be read by the largest nmber of hardware; I have deleted "including Amazon Kindle Fire" since EPUB can definitely not be read by Kindle Fire. Any EPUB uploaded to Amazon will be there converted by them to their own format. The previous poster apparently misunderstood an Amazon publishers page that says you can upload EPUBs to Amazon. Yes indeed and you can upload many other formats however all of them are converted by Amazon to AZW3, also called KF8. That page is a publishers page not a readers page. See Amazon Kindle#File formats Kildwyke (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)