Talk:EPUB

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.
 

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

license?[edit]

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)
EPUB is a technical standard, but it isn't either a free standard or an open standard. According to wikipedia's own definitions: users of a free standard have the same four freedoms associated with free software, but since EPUB is copyrighted with a statement of no-redistribution of changes, it doesn't allow for the four freedoms. As for open standard, well, I can concede that it really depends on which definition you want to go with (from wikipedia's on page, "there is no single definition and interpretations vary with usage"). Some definitions (like, for eg., the Portuguese Law, which follows a slight variant of FSFE's definition) include a clause that says that it must be "without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves", which doesn't happen on EPUB, since it allows the inclusion of any DRM scheme (including any that isn't an Open Standard). So, while under some definitions EPUB might be an open standard, it isn't under others, so it wouldn't be correct to state it is an open standard (unless we're saying definitions like FSFE's are incorrect). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.166.49.94 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (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."

IS A CONTRADICTION.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EPUB. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)