I must be misreading that. How is lack of support for footnotes and endnotes a positive feature, as opposed to a glaringly missing feature?
> saving the compiler the job of managing complex code.
I re-read this 6 times, trying to figure it out. You mean, the human who creates the book?
On technical forums, I suggest you not use "compiler" in that sense, because we are accustomed to its technical meaning, of software that translates computer language.
On a positive note, I like markdown, and I dislike creating and reading XML by hand (although it works ok for software to deal with), so this seems like a fine idea to me.
Footnotes are bits of text tagged on at the end, like Wikipedia for instance. UBook semantically tags them so they are available where the note exists in the book. Presumably a popup or panel when you touch or click the note marker in the text. It was a bad use of words. It was meant to convey the idea you didn't jump to the end of the chapter or book to read a note. HTML-based formats just use anchors.
Yes, compiler is ambiguous. The idea behind it is a clean interim language a writing tool could export to, and software could then adapt to other formats like Kindle etc.
I must be misreading that. How is lack of support for footnotes and endnotes a positive feature, as opposed to a glaringly missing feature?
> saving the compiler the job of managing complex code.
I re-read this 6 times, trying to figure it out. You mean, the human who creates the book?
On technical forums, I suggest you not use "compiler" in that sense, because we are accustomed to its technical meaning, of software that translates computer language.
On a positive note, I like markdown, and I dislike creating and reading XML by hand (although it works ok for software to deal with), so this seems like a fine idea to me.