Mobileread
So, I'm creating my first eBook - It's only 1,100 pages...
#1  mazdaspeed 04-15-2020, 11:26 PM
Quite honestly, I've gotten a great deal of mileage from MobileRead and I've never posted. My project is a version of the Holy Scriptures edited from a mid-1500's, Spanish manuscript.

I'm volunteering for the non-profit publisher that previously had this Bible ePublished on Amazon and various other platforms, until it was recently recalled from the sub-contracted, for profit, publisher.

The intention is to now re-publish and distribute the Spanish and English versions, free-of-cost. The InDesign files were obtained for the print layout, but no ePublished files were obtained, and that's where I come in.

I've done an InDesign EPUB export that actually came out in a very workable fashion, and I've now have some really clean html5 and a reworked CSS stripped of InDesign's signature mess.

Considering I've never done more than use Calibre on a few occasions to convert some PDFs to mobi, I'm feeling pretty good about this project. I have a working, 3-level, internal TOC with crosslinking of all books and chapters, and it even passes the EPUB validator at http://validator.idpf.org/.

What I'm here for at this time is to figure out if it's possible to exclude the Dictionary and Concordance from being searched by any given eReader's search engine. I would like to think there is a way to use a <div> to flag sections to NOT be searched.

Any advice or feedback would be welcomed.
Reply 

#2  Hitch 04-17-2020, 06:24 PM
Quote mazdaspeed
Quite honestly, I've gotten a great deal of mileage from MobileRead and I've never posted. My project is a version of the Holy Scriptures edited from a mid-1500's, Spanish manuscript.

I'm volunteering for the non-profit publisher that previously had this Bible ePublished on Amazon and various other platforms, until it was recently recalled from the sub-contracted, for profit, publisher.

The intention is to now re-publish and distribute the Spanish and English versions, free-of-cost. The InDesign files were obtained for the print layout, but no ePublished files were obtained, and that's where I come in.

I've done an InDesign EPUB export that actually came out in a very workable fashion, and I've now have some really clean html5 and a reworked CSS stripped of InDesign's signature mess.

Considering I've never done more than use Calibre on a few occasions to convert some PDFs to mobi, I'm feeling pretty good about this project. I have a working, 3-level, internal TOC with crosslinking of all books and chapters, and it even passes the EPUB validator at http://validator.idpf.org/.

What I'm here for at this time is to figure out if it's possible to exclude the Dictionary and Concordance from being searched by any given eReader's search engine. I would like to think there is a way to use a <div> to flag sections to NOT be searched.

Any advice or feedback would be welcomed.
No. I mean, I can sit here and blather on, but the answer is, quite simply, NO.

For the same reason that "choose your own adventure" books can't limit where the readers go, or stop people from peeking at answers in the back, etc. You cannot hand over what is basically a 1990's website to someone and then try to use programmatic limitations in an environment that doesn't support those.

Hitch
Reply 

#3  Doitsu 04-19-2020, 02:55 AM
Quote mazdaspeed
What I'm here for at this time is to figure out if it's possible to exclude the Dictionary and Concordance from being searched by any given eReader's search engine.
While you might be able to use JavaScript to hide contents in epub3 books, it'd next to impossible to maintain epub2 compatibility.

You might want to consider the following two suggestions:

1. Release the book as iOS and Android apps. (There are many free toolkits that allow you create HTML/CSS based apps.)
2. Remove the dictionaries from the book and release them as StarDict dictionaries for ePub apps and Kindle dictionaries for Kindle readers and apps.
Reply 

#4  najgori 04-19-2020, 06:16 AM
"Scripture app builder helps you to build customized Scripture apps for Android and iOS smartphones and tablets."
and there is also
"Reading App Builder helps you build customized apps for Android and iOS smartphones and tablets."
Reply 

#5  Quoth 04-20-2020, 04:52 AM
However an ebook will work on now unsupported iOS and Android that already had ereaders and on all eink.
Why block concordance and dictionary?

Personally I'd not install a book related thing as an app, ever, on Android.
Reply 

#6  stumped 04-20-2020, 06:40 AM
Quote Quoth
However an ebook will work on now unsupported iOS and Android that already had ereaders and on all eink.
Why block concordance and dictionary?

Personally I'd not install a book related thing as an app, ever, on Android.
why even have a concordance- that's an ancient redundant relic of printed books - redundant because a reader device search does the same thing, but automated and thus not error prone ?

same applies to including a dictionary within the book if that is what's planned. e-readers come with dictionary pre-installed.
Reply 

#7  Quoth 04-20-2020, 09:12 AM
No, a search doesn't do the same exactly as a concordance. It's a specialised dictionary that would have a definition for each entry (like a dictionary) but ALSO have a link to each verse were that particular meaning is used.
So one aspect can be be done poorly with search and one aspect done badly with a separate dictionary.

I just dug out Cruden's Concordance and a more modern one to check. So you'd not want a separate dictionary, that should be integrated to the concordance.
Some words have quite different meaning in a Bible to an ordinary dictionary. The Old Testament may use different words for the same thing or personal names (Joshua = Jesus, Mary = Miriam, James is not even in the Greek, I forget what it should be, that was a sop to King James). I've no idea about Spanish.
Some ereaders have issues with 3 levels and more in TOC, so only more headings textually in the "in book" Contents pages.
Reply 

#8  stumped 04-20-2020, 09:54 AM
ok - conceding the need for a concordance ( if God had trouble keeping all the names straight between OT - NT, should have revealed it to George Martin instead of a bunch of semi-literates ) ....

Why is there a need to block the reader search engine from searching said concordance
I mean if readers are not supposed to access this stuff - why not write the whole thing only in Latin .... what's that? oh it was tried - didn't end well
Reply 

#9  Quoth 04-20-2020, 10:41 AM
The OT is in Hebrew, apart from the bits in Aramaic.
The NT is in Greek, but not the sort of Greek of the Classics.
So often different names & and translators.
Additionally the OT was translated into another kind of Greek, but with some words and most names left in Hebrew by Jewish Scholars, maybe in Egypt, perhaps at different times between 300 years and 50 years before the start of the events in the NT. The NT was written by Jews in Greek (Luke was a convert to Judaism before a Christian and probably wrote Acts and Luke). It's not 100% clear who wrote some NT books and less clear who wrote, or in the case of older ones, wrote down older Oral accounts. A lot of the OT was probably written or finalised in the Babylonian captivity. The Book of Daniel is mostly in Aramaic.
Then in the 4th C. the Christian Religion sort of became official rather than persecuted. So towards the end of the 4th C. the Vulgate was created in Latin. It did make use of the Septuagint as well as official versions of the "Hebrew" OT and various versions of the NT in its "different" Greek.
So later translators to other languages used all of those and also early English translations. Curiously the official Catholic English translation used the Protestant King James. Today's King James Version isn't the original, but even more oddly used some aspects of the Catholic English Version. (numerous versions of the Douay and Douay -Rheims over 200 years! In 1960s there was a new English Catholic version translated from a new French Version called the Jerusalem Bible).
After the KJV (nowhere near the first English) there are too many English versions and revisions to list before the 20th C.
Originally many languages got Bibles either from whatever was the current KJV, or the Douay-Rheims or the Vulgate.
So crazily the OT + NT for Jewish Christians using Hebrew was originally from the KJV!
IN the later half 20th & 21st C a lot of work has been done using original sources, but comparing with Septuagint and Vulgate, direct to languages.

I've no idea what the Spanish version discussed here is in terms of sources.
Concordances with notes outlining possible alternate readings (not always as notes in the text) are important.
Ezekiel: The Jerusalem version reads "Marked with a Cross". The NIV reads something like received a mark. The hebrew is a single letter, Taf, which in the OLD alphabet is like X, but not only that, in old Hebrew and Aramaic is means also "mark". In plural in modern Hebrew it might be used for keyboard (from typewriter days). And what did people do when asked to sign and couldn't write? They put their mark, an X or + (cross).
Edit:
Also in Greek there is the letter Tau (maybe related to Taf as Greek alpha Beta comes Aramaic/Hebrew Phoenician Alef Bet and becomes the Roman/Latin we use). It's used from earliest times as a symbol of the Cross the Messiah (=Christos in Greek) was crucified on.

Indeed it's a mad idea to block the concordance/dictionary.
Reply 

#10  stumped 04-20-2020, 10:54 AM
i don't want to turn this into a religiou debate, but after googling some more re concordances

the idea seems to be that the concordance is a list of important stuff + a cross reference to where name A actually = name B ?
Different concordances make different choices as to what is important
its not clear ( to me yet) if the concordances are typically produced by the folks who also masterminded that bible edition / translation, or if they get added much later.
so we have e.g. the famous A.V. / King James bible , commissioned of course by King James in 1603, finished ~50 years later, but I don't recall him commissioning a matching concordance at the time ?

seems that a later concordance could introduce an "editors" take on what's "important", and so someone who simply want to self-study the bible ( having negotiated the minefield of what edition to go with ) is arguably better of with machine generated, neutral search results for where words / phrases occur
Reply 

  Next »  Last »  (1/3)
Today's Posts | Search this Thread | Login | Register