Here is an early (1995) attempt to convince writers and editors that ’structure’ was more than good plotting (note the cute title):

README.1ST: SGML for Writers and Editors, ISBN 0134327179

“With this book, writers and editors can learn what they need to know to prepare and structure documents using the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML), the new standard for electronic and database publishing. This book presents a non-technical overview of SGML in language that writers and editors can understand. It explains why SGML focuses on structure and essentially disregards formatting issues and shows how to define a document’s structure, writing with SGML structure in mind.”

25% discount code: toc07bsg
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/toc/

I used the example of the music industry. They spent years and millions of dollars trying to develop a “standard” for delivering music to the masses. What prevailed — because it worked universally — is the MP3 format. Proprietary leads to closed systems. You must have the right software, platform, version, device, etc. I have yet to hear the publishing industry say that they’re basing their own standards on open standards (like XML).

Personally, the only format I trust for longevity is text, but even I see that plain text is impractical for deploying content across formats. You really do need more in order to fulfill the mission…

Unfortunately it looks like all too many in the industry are still ordering from old take-out menus.

Oh right. Topic at hand. I’m glad you mentioned the IDPF (say that three times fast). I don’t suppose that the concept of “text” figured into the standards? Still the most universal format around. Remember the olden days when XML was going to standardize data formatting and/or retrieval/republishing? I imagine this is still a viable concept but one discussed among geeks more than conference attendees. Standardized mark-up was going to lead the way.

I am, as you can well imagine, leery of propietary “standards”. That is to say, I am leery of standards that are unique to an industry and not necessarily adopted across technologies. I do not know if that is the case here, but as a veteran of format wars, do, naturally, recall the multiple attempts by the music industry to establish standards on the general public.

Unfortunately, said public had already adopted its choice and the music industry realized that it was going to be harder than expected to impose its will on the people. Darn democracies!

So, yeah, I am completely in favor of a standard that works with the widest possible range of devices. From laptops to future inventions.

Number two. Wow. Yes. Totally. Book is still relatively new to our species. Story? That’s the ticket.

3? See Terence McKenna quote. Blew me away in 1992. Still makes sense now. Moreso than ever.

Three big takeaways:
1) Standards for digital content files are very near completion, meaning that many different kinds of input files can be easily converted into one standard type of digital package, which can then be output in as many many different formats as there are devices. This will make the costs of conversion decrease dramatically, which should increase the amount of digital product available, which should, in turn, make it more attractive to consumers. You don’t have to wait to figure out which device is going to prevail, just digitize your content now.
2) Don’t assume that a satisfying ‘book experience’ necessarily means ‘like a book’.
3) The rate of change is accelerating and is about to accelerate further.