Tables in ePub

[Quoth]

Like this?

Deleted because I saved it on our own server

P.S. I'm likely to delete it sometime later.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

At some point, one has to wonder why not write markdown directlly in any text editor one likes and directly convert that to EPUB with pandoc.

The OP may want a WYSIWYG markdown editor.

It makes me wonder if this is how those books I sometimes get have been created; the ones with a span around each word.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by hobnail

The OP may want a WYSIWYG markdown editor.

But the primary motivation for the creation of asciidoc, markdown, restructured text, etc, was escaping WYSIWYG editors.

It makes me wonder if this is how those books I sometimes get have been created; the ones with a span around each word.

Hand generated asciidoc, markdown, or restructured text would not ever do that, and would likely be difficult to machine generate asciidoc, markdown, or restructured text that did so without gratuitously wrapping each word with embedded tags.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Like this?
(Image snipped by Hitch so that people's own heads don't fall off, watching two of the cursed things headbanging in synch.)
Maybe needs resized.

P.S. I'm likely to delete it sometime later.

Oh,wait, you just put the link inside an IMG BBG tag? Really?

I admit, I don't use GIFs or any animated anything very often, because they tend to get on my own last nerve, so...I hate to inflict them on others. But I feel that this is a special occasion.

Thanks!

Hitch

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Artie

@Tex2002ans*I'm afraid I hate Word [...]. I prefer Markdown instead. Thank you.

Me too. But Markdown is crappier for:

• Tables
• Footnotes
• Formulas
• Images/Captions/Figures
• Cross-references
• Colors
• [...]

and quite a few other things too.

Originally Posted by j.p.s

At some point, one has to wonder why not write markdown directlly in any text editor one likes and directly convert that to EPUB with pandoc.

Exactly. That's one way to do things.

Like I write all my posts here (and on Reddit) in Markdown.

I write all my in-depth book changelogs in Markdown.

Basic/Intermediate things, I hugely prefer Markdown.

But once you begin to need (or require) more complicated things along those edges... Markdown doesn't cut it.

* * *

Anyway, here was a relevant talk given last year by pandoc's creator:

• TUG 2020: "John MacFarlane — Pandoc for TeXnicians"

It was mostly focused on converting LaTeX to other formats via pandoc (and trying to convince LaTeX users to use his markdown instead)...

... but he covers a lot of Input->pandoc->Output workflows, like:

• Markdown (pandoc's flavor) -> pandoc -> Output formats
• LaTeX -> pandoc -> Output formats
  
  • And Input formats -> pandoc -> LaTeX... showing off round-tripping.

and showing off various advanced tips/tricks when dealing with complicated use-cases.

MacFarlane also describes a lot of pandoc's disadvantages + current pain points. (Lots of edge cases that pandoc cannot handle well [or at all].)

In his own words, pandoc is "a jack of all trades, a master of none".

Originally Posted by Artie

@phillipgessert*@j.p.s*@jmurphy Thank you for understanding that I prefer to work with Markdown.
You have shared an interesting
resource:*https://www.markdownguide.org/tools/

Pandoc's Markdown would probably be the most fully featured (although I haven't ventured too far into all the various types).

You can even enable "Extensions"—enabling better footnotes, alternate tables, etc.

Originally Posted by Artie

Now, if somebody can point me to a resource for CSS for tables for EPUB, would be great.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).

Just stick with the basic HTML.

The proper <th> + <td> is the most important.

(Completely Optional) You can add <thead> if you want. This would allow the headings to duplicate if a pagebreak occurs within the table.

If you want to get "fancier", then create basic classes for alignment:

- left
- center
- right

First   Last          Number
Joe     Brownstone         5
Tex     Testerson        100

Spoiler:

  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr>
        <th class="left">First</th>
        <th class="left">Last</th>
        <th class="right">Number</th>
      </tr>
    </thead>
    
    <tbody>
      <tr>
        <td class="left">Joe</td>
        <td class="left">Brownstone</td>
        <td class="right">5</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td class="left">Tex</td>
        <td class="left">Testerson</td>
        <td class="right">100</td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

Of course, you can get more complicated than that:

• add vertical spacing
• OpenType features (like Tabular or Lining Numbers)
• or use more advanced CSS3

as long as you keep in mind fallbacks...

But Alignment. Alignment's about as fancy as I get with my <table>s nowadays.

(Personally, in my case, I'm only reproducing what I'm given. I don't have free range to completely redo tables with proper typography.)

(Although if I was in charge of retypesetting tables for Print, then of course I'd use LaTeX w/ booktabs + siunitx + all the fancy stuff.)

Originally Posted by Hitch

Didn't you say that you'd worked with HTML for years? Given that Word (and LO, OO, etc.)'s "styles" are nothing but CSS...doesn't that seem a little odd to you? It's not like Styles came out of the blue. They exist quite simply because they are CSS. CSS that you control, not some invisible man behind the curtain.

Yep, and if you understand CSS, Styles should come second nature.

If you use Styles cleanly and consistently, the HTML coming out of Word/LibreOffice actually is pretty clean.

(And you can use fantastic tools like Toxaris's EPUBTools to get extremely minimal HTML + even carry over all the exact class names for you! Plus lots of other helpful EPUB things.. like mass export Equations to SVG/MathML.)

Code/Text Comparison

Another nice advantage of these more "visual" editors is... much easier to compare documents or edit without having to "look through the matrix".

This especially becomes apparent when working with paragraph-sized interweaving layers of corrections.

Word Compare

A few months back, I stumbled upon this video for Microsoft Word:

• "Word: Advanced Track changes & collaboration tricks"
  
  • The first 1:30 is all that's important, the rest is pretty junk.

I never really saw someone fiddle with the various levels of "Show Markup".

Word's Compare (or Track Changes) is actually quite good when working on books.

(Especially if you go digging into "Track Changes Options > Advanced Options".)

LibreOffice Compare

LibreOffice's Compare is... brutal. (Although they are taking a few steps in the right direction... 7.3 is introducing lots of Track Changes fixes+enhancements).

Git + Beyond Compare + Others

Most of these other tools were designed for comparing LINES. Short lines of code.

(Yes, the problems can be mitigated somewhat in your source files by methods like "a sentence per line" and/or strict git control [committing after every little change].)

But the technical level of these tools is also usually... quite high. Not a method for 99.99% of authors.

Side Note #2: I wrote about Beyond Compare + a few other comparison methods back in:

• 2017: "Does any free software compare epubs?"

and I swear I wrote about comparison tools more often, but I couldn't find my old posts very quickly. (Maybe I wrote it in emails many years ago, and haven't mentioned it since?)

[JSWolf]

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Oh,wait, you just put the link inside an IMG BBG tag? Really?

I downloaded it,
Uploaded to our own hosting.
Then used our own site's URL as the link in the BB tag.

Why? I thought it might be an autogenerated download link that would expire or something.

[Hitch]

Tex wrote:

Me too. But Markdown is crappier for:
Tables
Footnotes
Formulas
Images/Captions/Figures
Cross-references
Colors
[...]

and quite a few other things too.

Yes, but you hate anything that requires being paid for or subscribed to, etc. You don't "hate" Word out of some peculiar dislike of it, itself.

Saying that you understand HTML, but "hate Styles" makes no sense at all.

In my travels, for whatever it's worth, 99% of the people that I meet that talk about how they "hate" Word, or they don't like Styles, etc. have never bothered to spend even 30 minutes learning about Word, or Styles, or understanding Outline View, the Nav Pane, etc.--all the things that genuinely make Word a power tool--and the very functions, features, menu choices, etc. that give you power over Word.

A few months back, I stumbled upon this video for Microsoft Word:
"Word: Advanced Track changes & collaboration tricks"
The first 1:30 is all that's important, the rest is pretty junk.

I never really saw someone fiddle with the various levels of "Show Markup".

Word's Compare (or Track Changes) is actually quite good when working on books.

For a variety of production reasons, we live and die with that level of TC detail. Incredibly useful in a bookmaking environment in which you deal with authors. (We use a flow method, with a Word file generated by InDesign, to intake and place revisions from the authors.)

Folks can cut themselves off from Word, for philosophical reasons (Tex), tech reasons (Quoth) etc. but Word is remarkably simple and clean to use, IF, like every other damn tool, you bother to learn how to make it sing and dance.

Hitch

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Folks can cut themselves off from Word, for philosophical reasons (Tex), tech reasons (Quoth) etc. but Word is remarkably simple and clean to use, IF, like every other damn tool, you bother to learn how to make it sing and dance.

But we shouldn't have to learn anything, it should all be intuitive.

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that or it's equivalent, I'd be relaxing on a patio overlooking a tropical beach.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Folks can cut themselves off from Word, for philosophical reasons (Tex), tech reasons (Quoth) etc. but Word is remarkably simple and clean to use, IF, like every other damn tool, you bother to learn how to make it sing and dance.

Hitch

Yes. Better to learn properly to use MS Word than some crazy method. Despite MS's best efforts it's still the best paid Word-processor since Windows 3.0, or earlier on the Mac (The local version, not Online). I've taught and trained people from primary school age to retired, professionals, students, executives etc. Nothing non-trival is intuitive. Some people are good at research, self-study etc, most need structured training. And YouTube videos are poor for most things compared to good books/manuals or trainers/teachers.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DNSB

But we shouldn't have to learn anything, it should all be intuitive.

If I had a dime for every time I've heard that or it's equivalent, I'd be relaxing on a patio overlooking a tropical beach.

The simpler something is, the fewer capabilities it has, or the more addictive it is (games), the easier it is to make it "intuitive." Typing in NotePad is "intuitive" because there's not much for the amateur to know/do.

In Games, like that Farmland or Farm-whatever game that FB had, it's easy to make it "intuitive" not because it genuinely is--but because the addict will continue to try to play the game and "win" while it's free, as you accustom him or her to those wee jolts of dopamine, thus luring him/her into buying this token or that. God only knows how much FB earned off that "free" game.

But for any program, any CMS, anything, that does more...well, sports fans, there be the instructions. If you (not YOU, DNSB, obviously) persist in thinking that it should just roll over, sit up and beg, just because you WANT it to, well...nope, it ain't a-gunna do that.

If I, DNSB, had a dollar for everytime someone said "I can't review the eBook, it's too HARD," yup, I'd be right there on the beach with you. 99% of the time, when I heard this, they not only hadn't read our (illustrated) instructions or how-tos, but hadn't even bothered to download the PDFs. It's infuriating and frustrating. WHY do people avoid the easiest paths to what they want to do?

Hitch

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Word is remarkably simple and clean to use.

That was never ever my experience.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, but you hate anything that requires being paid for or subscribed to, etc. You don't "hate" Word out of some peculiar dislike of it, itself.

[...]

Folks can cut themselves off from Word, for philosophical reasons (Tex) [...]

Heh, yep. For the most part, for the most part.

Locking your documents into proprietary formats, bad, bad idea!

* * *

Also, another thing to remember.

Creating books is an entire process. It's not just a single author typing away.

This book then gets passed on through multiple hands:

• Editors
• Typographers
• Indexers
• Ebook-specialists
• [...]

The more obscure and technical your workflow becomes, the harder (and more expensive) it becomes to find people with that specific mix of skills to work on your book.

* * *

For example, there was a very complicated Thermodynamics book worked on:

Typed in LaTeX. With dozens of complicated Figures + hundreds and hundreds of equations.

You needed to find someone who:

1. Knew enough about LaTeX to even read the thing.

(A normal editor won't know that.)

2. Knew enough about Maths/Physics to be able to parse the equations (and correct the markup if needed).

(A normal editor won't know that.)

3. Knew enough about Mathematical/Scientific typography to:

• Correct spacing within equations
  
  • Quad spaces, Em Spaces, aligning to equals/plus/minus signs, etc.
• Making sure your "sin" and "cos" are Roman
• Constants/Constants within equations aren't accidentally Italic type
  
  • Italics in equations are reserved for variables
• Bolding your vectors in Physics.
  
  • Maybe he wanted arrow or hat-form, so you can't just mark vectors as **bold**, you have to use \vec{x}.
• Properly typesetting Units ("220 km", "3 m", "2.52 kg").
  
  • SI Units require a NON-BREAKING or THIN SPACE between.
• Correcting chemical formulas like "H2O" or "SO4".
  
  • Or dealing with ions/isotopes with prescripts + postscripts (superscripts+subscripts before/after the formula).

(A normal typographer won't know that.)

4. Understand how to read LaTeX Equation Numbers + Cross-References.

(A normal editor won't know that + these are very easy to make mistakes in, even for advanced users.)

5. You couldn't just run typical tools/methods on the LaTeX:

• Most normal spellcheckers + grammarcheckers completely begin to choke once working on complicated markup.

Sure, you might be able to export to DOCX, have the editor run their tools on it, but now you have the "bifurcation" problem. You have to now duplicate all those corrections back from DOCX->Markdown.

So you'll needed someone who was able to "see through the matrix" of the markup, to normalize the text + catch tons of minor errors... hopefully making corrections right within the source document.

* * *

Anyway, after I woke up today, I also thought back to fantastic WYSIYM editors that let you "see through the matrix" of markup.

That guy's Reddit post from 2 years ago still completely blows me away:

• /r/LaTeX: "How I'm able to take notes in mathematics lectures using LaTeX and Vim"

I also wrote about some of that in 2019 + or a few LaTeX WYSIYM examples in 2017 (emacs+AUCTeX).

Again, I was scratching my head this morning.

Why limit yourself to these crippled Markdown editors like Ulysses. Why not just go full-on emacs/vim... then you could fully customize all the Markdown to your heart's content.

And WYSIYM still means the underlying plaintext markup is there, just much much easier to visualize.

Originally Posted by Hitch

For a variety of production reasons, we live and die with that level of TC detail. Incredibly useful in a bookmaking environment in which you deal with authors. (We use a flow method, with a Word file generated by InDesign, to intake and place revisions from the authors.)

You've been winning me over, moving my needle, (slightly), over the years. :P

I don't hate Word/InDesign as much as I once did.

I still won't go around promoting them as my top choice, but I definitely see lots of the pros that I previously blinded myself to.

Like, if it was in my ideal world, we'd all be working in the HTML.

But then you hit the reality, and see that:

• 99% of Authors don't know how to use Styles.
  
  • Let alone using them perfectly consistently.
• 99% of Editors "only work in Word"
  
  • And your precious markup will be lost/mangled.
• 90%+ of Typographers "only know InDesign".
  
  • And a huge proportion don't use Styles.
• 99% of Indexers don't even use auto-updated Indexes.
  
  • Hard enough finding one that would work directly in the digital files (and not a finalized PDF). Good luck finding one that'll know your specific brand of markup.
• 99% of people can't read intermediate/semi-advanced Math.
  
  • You put a formula in their book? Their eyes glaze over. They're GONE!
• [...]

[Quoth]

Most people use Wordprocessors, Indesign, DTP etc as glass typewriting machines.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

That was never ever my experience.

Not to be a wiseass or snark--seriously--but did you ever sit down with tutorials or a short class from MSFT in how to use it?

I found Word nearly unintelligible, after migrating from WordPerfect, 30-ish years ago. I fought it for...gahd, I don't know how long. I then had a need to work on the CC&R's for a Master Planned community with 5-6 sub-communities and I knew that the resulting document was going to be hundreds of pages long with, more importantly, probably 100+ cross references inside it. I had zero desire to have to constantly cross-check, change and update section/para numbers, etc.

I looked on MSFT.com at the time, found 2 tutorials that changed absolutely everything about how I looked at, and worked with, Word. In Word (or LO/OO/etc.) styles and headings are absolutely everything. They drive the bus. If you don't use them ("you" generally, not directly), no, Word will be a confusing mire. If you don't understand how headings work, how they directly map to HTML heading styles, ditto. If you don't look at how Outline View/Mode works, or the Navigation Pane, yes...it's likely confusing.

But once you understand what you can do with Styles (use defaults, make your own); the primacy of the headings and how those domino/cascade (or how you can drive an entire template by changing ONE font in one style, or one font-size,etc. and have it ripple throughout), then that's everything and the "secrets" to mastering Word are yours.

Yes, I know, I sound like a MSFT commercial for Word. Trust me, I'm not--but it frustrates me that people get so stymied with Word. Typically--and this may not be your instance, i freely admit--it's because they've never taken a few hours to genuinely learn what's at the heart of it.

It's like saying you "hate" Styles--what's to hate? I mean...they're TOOLS. That's it. [shrug]

Hitch