Forum: Author Hangout

I still don't understand why word processors don't have an option "Save as HTML with CSS".

The problem isn't that WORD, LO and OO don't include as "Save with CSS", but that they include SO much utterly useless crap when they create the epub. If they included a "with CSS" option, then the CSS file would also contain the same crap.

Just so you know, the type of crap these files typically contain are specialized Styles that will allow WORD and LB to process and internal settings within the document exactly as they do now (ex: things like dates, common names, foreign languages. In other words, things which don't impact the final document, but only allows WORD to continue showing their meaningless grammar and spell-check suggestions whenever they might display the html file).

Just as it pays to create your own html file by ripping out the crap that these word processors dump in them, it would also pay to write the entire CSS from scratch, using only the definitions you, the author, originally set up in these word documents.

Likewise, although I haven't examined your link about using external CSS with LO, it wouldn't circumvent the issue, as LO would still add it's own crap to your CSS. :(

It's extra effort, but the benefits in smaller files and faster processing speeds with the final product clearly justifies the extra work.

If they included a separate CSS it should be way less unless they dumbly add doubles. Much off the inline css is the same for many paragraphs which should result in a single instance for all of those in a separate css file.

No, they wouldn't include any less, instead, you'd have to do literally twice the work of cleaning up the exact same thing twice.

The whole point of creating a CSS is to apply your single document settings (Style Definitions included) to everything stored on a website (on in an epub). Without a way of telling the word processor which components you'd want, it would put everything in, including it's own internal-processing definitions.

I would have thought using an external css would automatically drop the inline css. At least that is what seems logical to me.

It doesn't reduce the contents of any single document, it prevents each document from repeating the exact same commands (just like, in Ernest's case, Calibre adds the exact same commands to each Calibre 'chapter' (which can vary widely in size from one book to another)).

Plus, WORD dumps all that crap into files because few authors have a clue how to create or edit an html file (as Ernest never wanted to be bothered doing before), and even among html coders, but add more to a CSS than than a few stray commands. Thus it's a LOT of work that no one would ever know enough to use. It's a losing proposition for everyone involved. :(

Fixing a typo could be done in the xhtml, a full rewrite though...

I converted my Word doc to XHTML/CSS by hand for my first novel. I did make a typo change in the HTML later. I don't remember if I went back and made the same change in the Word doc (right now I don't trust the Word version to be as current as the HTML one). The point is, the XHTML/CSS file is now the master. As you said, if I want to make a change more than a typo, forget it.

I'll live with the extra code Calibre creates. Calibre also automatically creates the Table of Contents if you define your chapters as Heading 1. I remember doing that manually wasn't so easy.

I don't remember if I went back and made the same change in the Word doc (right now I don't trust the Word version to be as current as the HTML one.

That's why I use so many duplicate files, so I won't forget what I've updated and what I haven't, since I update everything. But again, I don't repeat the process every time. I already limit what WORD dumps into the html files, I then circumvent their extensive definitions by using my pre-defined html Style Defs (normally a simple cut & paste, except I now cut and paste the entire text in one go, rather than adjust each html section separately.

It's all about working smarter, not harder. If I went through the amount of work you're assuming, I'd never do the work for any file, rather than doing it for EVERY file as I do now.

But, I've also been doing this for a hell-of-a-long time, studying other's websites to see what they include, and how they work around problematic issues. So now the entire process is like a well-oiled machine. It doesn't take much maintenance.

I already limit what WORD dumps into the html files

When I did it manually, I did it MANUALLY. I didn't do a "save as HTML" and then clean it up. I searched for italicized words and bracketed them with the . And I wrote the HTML/CSS from scratch. And, as I said, the Table of Contents wasn't easy to create.

At the time, I thought about creating a website and needed to do it for that. But I have no interest in doing that anymore.

I already limit what WORD dumps into the html files

When I did it manually, I did it MANUALLY. I didn't do a "save as HTML" and then clean it up. I searched for italicized words and bracketed them with the . And I wrote the HTML/CSS from scratch. And, as I said, the Table of Contents wasn't easy to create.

At the time, I thought about creating a website and needed to do it for that. But I have no interest in doing that anymore.

The problem I see with what you're doing is that your master copy of your novel is now in the modified XHTML/CSS rather than in LibreOffice. So any time you want to make a change, even fixing a typo, you can't do it in LibreOffice.

I do this not only with each of my books, and for each chapter of every book, but I update it (duplicating the process) for each chapter update. Once you've done it a few times, it becomes fairly automatic, as you inherently know what to look for.

The CSS additions take my approach a step further, as I was simply copying my WORD definitions from one html file to another. Ernest is taking it a step further, replacing all his definitions with a single CSS file for either his entire website, or his entire epub.

It does take a little more time, but the benefits of routinely 'cleaning house' makes the routine beneficial. I now routinely delete any internal WORD Style Definitions from my documents, so I don't have to worry about it being inserted into my documents, and most of the crap it dumps into your html files can easily be eliminated by clicking a few settings within WORD. Again, it's worth cleaning house just so you'll know what it's doing to your files, so you can cut it off at the sources.

Have any of you authors ever tried Scrivener, yWriter, Grammarly? It just seems to me that there are way better tools for writing then a standard word processor like MS Word or LibreOffice.

First of all, Grammarly is an advanced spell-checker, not a way to write stories. Similarly, Scrivener is a content formulation tool, so it doesn't help your write, it merely allows you to spread your ideas out on a large virtual wall so you can waste hours decided what to write.

But you have the same thing with the newer writing apps, in that they're all geared towards 'distraction free writing', meaning they offer little formatting options, assuming everyone is too stupid to understand what they're doing. Thus they're essentially for those of us who already know how to write and use the various tools, instead they're geared towards those who'll likely never get very far (simply because they'll never put in the time learning how to properly format things.

I've tried most of those tools, and haven't been satisfied with any. I'm also unhappy with the older word processors, but at least many of us learned how to use them after spending years in the business world, so it didn't take much time to become familiar with a new tool. Sadly, no one is even trying to create new Word Processors! The few that even take a stab at it (i.e. iBooks Author, or Kindle's new Kindle Create) have been dismal failures (they routinely are overly specialized, with too few features for most established authors).

If you search through the older threads, you'll notice we've debated each tool multiple times over the years, so year, we're all aware of them.

Experience with some tools similar to Grammarly's entire package suggests to me it's directed too heavily to the needs of technical writers and produces so many false positives for authors of fiction it's a waste of time.

I agree with your summation, plus most grammar (vs. spell checkers) tend to tell you "this use isn't valid" when it fact it's perfectly valid in fiction, but not in business report writing! :( The very first thing I do with any spell checker it to completely disable the grammar checker because of this. But in Grammarly, you can't. :(

I know what these tools do, as I mentioned them as 'tools', not as replacement word processors. I just wondered if anyone uses them.

Ah, that wasn't clear in my reading. As I said, I've tried each, except for yWriter, but as I said, Grammarly kept reporting too many false positives, so I spent more time checking out sentences/words with nothing wrong with them, cutting way down on my overall productivity (i.e. it didn't save me any time proofing my own work). Scrivener, as I said, is a 'storyboarding' tool, and since I don't need help constructing stories, it didn't seem helpful.

The ONE tool I do use heavily, though, is AutoCrit. They only allow you to test little segments, and they charge quite a bit, but I got involved with it early, when they were still trying to generate funds, so they offered me a fairly cheap lifetime membership. But it reports the types of things I can't get anywhere, and the things my editors don't even pick up on. But like all tools, you've got to learn which advice an options to ignore, and which few to focus on. But I now live and breathe by it, at least during my final revision phase (after the first draft but before I submit my stories to my editors).

Never heard of it but then I'm not an author so I'm not supposed to, right ;)
It looks like an interesting tool but indeed expensive. I would love to see how they defined the analyzing algorithms. (professional interest)

The problem, is that they don't filter the results at all, so some of their reports of full of false positives, while some are less so. But, for certain reports, which you learn to trust, it's worth the false positives for the insights it gives into your own writing process.

Sadly, many of the better reports are only available via their subscription model (i.e. you won't even see them with their 'sample' edits). :(

Once again, since I got in early, they often give me beta copies of new releases, so I can help fine-tune what the finished product, though they're still primarily a business tool, rather than a fiction writer's one.

By the way, I NEVER expected to see this level of interest in a thread about creating customized CSS specifically for epubs. I'm impressed there are this many users/authors curious about the process.

Scrivener, yWriter, Grammarly?

I found them totally useless and much harder to use than Libre Office because I care about the formatting and display of my stories. yWriter just didn't give me the easy text formatting capability I have in Libre Office.

Have any of you authors ever tried Scrivener, yWriter, Grammarly? It just seems to me that there are way better tools for writing then a standard word processor like MS Word or LibreOffice.

I use Scrivener, but probably not the way LitertureAndLatte intended. I write everything in plain text (on my Mac using BBEdit from Bare Bones Software), then run a bash script to create chapters and sections (folders and files) to import into Scrivener. I then change the SOL markup (the underscores and asterisks) to italics and bold manually. I then compile to docx, epub, mobi, and pdf.

Scrivener can be VERY confusing, though they've improved it with v3. Once you're happy with your layout, though, then it's really simple to use the same template for any book.

Scrivener can be VERY confusing, though they've improved it with v3. Once you're happy with your layout, though, then it's really simple to use the same template for any book.

In my case, once I figure out the correct formatting for each outlet (i.e. Amazon, lulu, SW and/or D2D) I reuse the file for each new story, and as I continually update and refine the formatting over time, I go back and update the older ones (though that's a much lessor priority!) There's no sense reinventing the wheel each time you time you change a tire. 'D

You should investigate scripting for the OS you are using.

The big problem with that it'll likely make serious cuts into my story writing time.

I bet it will save time, at least in the long run since the script will replace everything you are now replacing by hand.

I use Libre Office on Zorin Linux. My concern is if I get into learning enough to do the coding properly I'll probably get too involved in coding to write for a long while. At the moment I use the 'Replace all' function in the text editor to remove or replace what needs to be dealt with. Thus one action for each item I need to remove or change.

However, if you wish to code something for me to try I'll be happy to test it for you. For it to be less effort I'd need to end up with a script where I can list the various items to be replaced and what they should be replaced with so i can have everything in the one saved script and it runs to replace all of the common items. I'm not exactly sure how I'd go about that with the proper commands like grep etc.

You should investigate scripting for the OS you are using. I know on Linux you could create a bash file with multiple lines using 'sed' to replace text strings. I assume most re-occur in following books so you just have to run the script again to do most of the replacements. You can leave non-occuring replacements in the script, if they are not found nothing is replaced. Over time when you add more replacements the script becomes better and better by replacing almost all that needs replacing.

For me, you've got to be careful about global replacements, especially in the Word Processor to html cleanup, as there are often valid uses uses for certain coding (ex: < span class=""> statements, or even more obnoxious, the associated but separate "< /span>" commands). Thus you need to verify each replace/deletion. That's what takes the most time.

It's the kind of problem I meet almost daily since file conversions is one of the things I do professionally. I'm sure it's sometimes easier to start with a clean text file and add the tags. Replace multiple line breaks with /p + 2 line breaks + p tag and you have most done.

I too once worked with professional text conversion programs (the ones we once used have NEVER been duplicated since, so I'm wondering who dropped the ball in that field since the original company has been long out of business), but it's a little more complicated in the Word Processor html conversion cleanup.

The vast majority of the text is perfectly fine, especially since they each contain your style definitions. The problem is when, for some odd reason, they suddenly start adding in nonsense junk (like a misplace italic suddenly produces a full 3 lines of extra junk attached in multiple locations in each each paragraph thereafter. So it's not a cut and dried substitution process. Most times it's a simple process, but when it goes wrong, it often goes VERY wrong! Thus it's always safer to watch each replace operation to ensure you didn't screw up.

Our (us old-timer business word processor hacks) issue with the newer 'Distraction Free' apps is that they completely abandon the concept of defined Styles, thus you only get ONE KIND of paragraph, and each italic or bold is a stand-alone edit. That's akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water each time. Thus despite their many faults, we'll continue wrestling with their imperfections, because working from consistently implemented Style Defs ultimately saves us a LOT more work than 'never having to learn' about them does.

But then, we're the old dinosaurs, so I don't we'll change any of the younger, non-business trained author's minds.

Too bad every author produces exported html that is different for each author otherwise I could build a conversion for everyone.

Or do some cat herding by trying to convince us to use what you created.

The html code I use for SoL is a lot more basic than what i use for the e-pub. However, now I have that sed converter working I know how to do one for the SoL conversion .

It would require multiple files from different authors just to determine if it's possible to create a conversion for everyone. I doubt authors are willing to change the way they work just to be able to use such a conversion.

Maybe not, but once you have one, I'm sure there are plenty of author's who'd be eager to try it out. As we've said, most of us have tried a wide variety of tools, each of which finding different ones useful while others find them merely distracting. But each of those tools seems to have found a useful niche, and their developers definitely aren't starving!

I stay far away from windows.

so you should, snipers can shoot through them. lol.

The approach I ended up taking with the sed script file was to list each format code option I wanted removed or replaced. It is a little longer than I hoped, but it even covers code mixes in the old files that don't appear in the new files. The only thing I didn't cover is ordered and unordered lists because I don't use them.

The only thing I didn't cover is ordered and unordered lists because I don't use them.

I use them, but not often, and mostly for a book's front and back matter (ex: Acknowledgments, Contributors and my Contact lists) though I've also used them with indented text when some reads a sign or other else listing conditions. Against, fairly specialized exceptions.

I stay far away from windows.

A very wise choice, but I'm put off by the limited offerings on Linux (though Macs have even less dedicated programs). I'm only sticking with an old version of Windows 7 (the last version I felt I could trust, because I've been waiting for my desktop to die before replacing it with a $3,000+ replacement, and it absolutely refuses to give up the ghost (though my HD continue failing with consistency on a regular basis). Note: It was a custom-build system, and not a typical packaged computer from a name-brand company.

The html code I use for SoL is a lot more basic than what i use for the e-pub. However, now I have that sed converter working I know how to do one for the SoL conversion.

If you have a working cleanup routine your satisfied, send me a copy. Since I'm on Windows and Mac, I can't use a sed converter, but if I'm satisfied that it won't accidentally delete something needed, I'll gladly figure out out of my own.

I was just explaining why we were nervous about building one ourselves.

Too bad every author produces exported html that is different for each author otherwise I could build a conversion for everyone.

Ernest and I, at least, are essentially doing the same thing, though we came at it from two different directions. But occasionally we compare notes and suggest how different ways to code the Styles Defs and CSS files to refine our approaches.

Again, the big problem is not accidentally deleting something you need. I mentioned the < /span> command in reference to Ernest's comments about using it, but honestly, I've never used a span html command in my stories (although I add them in my epubs since Apple requires it for centered text, for some unknown reason.

When I mentioned how the WP programs often tack on the excessive code onto each paragraph, often is several discreet pieces, it also often 'takes over' simple < i> coding, adding in junk so that, if you did remove it, you might also strip out all the in-line formatting (i.e. the formatting not controlled by your Style Definitions.

But I was laying out the problems, if you want to try it, Ernest and I can provide you with plenty of examples of the crap which both WORD and LO dumps into html files. We've just been cautious about trying to implement it ourselves. But it's easy enough to compare pre and post html cleanup routines look, and quickly determine whether they're the same or not.

It's just been a LONG time since either of us have actively coded ourselves.

a span html command in my stories (although I add them in my epubs since Apple requires it for centered text, for some unknown reason.

When I hand coded the HTML for my first novel, converting from Word, I used a guide I found on the internet. It said e-books required the "span" for centering. So I don't think it's an Apple thing.

When I hand coded the HTML for my first novel, converting from Word, I used a guide I found on the internet. It said e-books required the "span" for centering. So I don't think it's an Apple thing.

It's only "required" for ebooks, because Apple won't center anything unless it includes the < span> command. The other 3rd party distributors just insert the necessary command for you, rather you having to code it yourself. But no one else insists on using a < span> command for anything, it's just one of those odd Apple demands that everyone else caters to (just like they do with Amazon's 'all indents are only a single space left-indent').

For a long time Ernest and I argued incessantly about whether Lulu 'required' an odd capitalization rule for chapter titles, but in the end, as long as it didn't involve the Lulu book going through Apple, it was fine, so in essence, it was an Apple restriction designed to penalize Lulu's authors.

It said e-books required the "span" for centering

I center the paragraphs as part of the paragraph style definition and not as a separate span command. because the centering doesn't turn up in the middle of a paragraph while the bold and italics do, thus they need a span command at that point.

I center the paragraphs as part of the paragraph style definition and not as a separate span command. because the centering doesn't turn up in the middle of a paragraph while the bold and italics do, thus they need a span command at that point.

There's never been a problem with centering text in a document, but Apple (and D2D too), for whatever reason, simply won't allow centered graphics unless it's accompanied by the odd-ball < span class="Centered"> command. If you include an image in an "align=center" paragraph, it defaults to left-justified, regardless of where it occurs.

When you deal with images on a regular basis, you learn the work-arounds quickly.

I've never used a span html command in my stories (although I add them in my epubs since Apple requires it for centered text, for some unknown reason.

This is from the guide on converting Word to XHTML/CSS

Centering text in eBooks is one of the most error prone undertakings because device manufacturers seem to have different takes on what "centering" means. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but I am not lying to you.

To create foolproof centering we have to double-stitch our approach, to make sure every device understands exactly what it is we're trying to do.

First we will include the following two styles in our file.

p.centered
{
text-indent: 0em;
text-align: center;
}
span.centered
{
text-indent: 0em;
text-align: center;
}

Since both declarations look identical, this might seem redundant, but sadly, some devices, like the iPad, require the < span > tag for centered elements, while others require the more commonly used < p > tag. I think it is also important to point out that the text-indent: 0em; setting is important in this context. Without it, the device would actually render our text slightly off-center because it would center the text and then add a 1.5em indentation to it. Not what we want, so we have to reset the indentation to zero.

To center our text line, we will now wrap it with the proper HTML tags and make it look like this.

< p class="centered" >< span class="centered" >***< /span >< /p >

This may not look nice in code form, but it solves all our problems and the line will now be centered correctly on all devices I have come across.

Thus < h 1 > becomes < h 1 c l a s s = " h e a d 1 " > and so on down the line, to where I have < s p a n c l a s s = " b o l d " > within the paragraph text to bold a section of text before I close it with the < / s p a n > command.

I do the same with simple corrections. If I have fewer than three corrections, I'll make them directly to the html and the original chapter document, but if I have to make larger changes, I'll repeat the entire "save as enhanced html..." process.

As for your "spanclass="bold", assuming you're submitting your html files to SOL, how does SOL handle the spanclass command? I'd think they'd automatically delete it, since it's not standard html.

What I meant was a space between span and class.

Since SOL assumes that ANY open bracket contains an html or SOL command, it tosses any it isn't set up to handle, so it's become common practice to include a space after the first left-bracket symbol (ex: '< spanclass="bold">').

If you have a mac

I do indeed have a raincoat, but my computer runs Windows XP - I need it for some specialist software I depend upon for my research :(

AJ

What's the simplest way for a dummy like me to convert a plain text file into something an e-reader can understand?

Calibre is free and runs on Windows.

https://manual.calibre-ebook.com/faq.html

What formats does calibre support conversion to/from?

calibre supports the conversion of many input formats to many output formats. It can convert every input format in the following list, to every output format.

Input Formats: AZW, AZW3, AZW4, CBZ, CBR, CBC, CHM, DJVU, DOCX, EPUB, FB2, FBZ, HTML, HTMLZ, LIT, LRF, MOBI, ODT, PDF, PRC, PDB, PML, RB, RTF, SNB, TCR, TXT, TXTZ

Output Formats: AZW3, EPUB, DOCX, FB2, HTMLZ, OEB, LIT, LRF, MOBI, PDB, PMLZ, RB, PDF, RTF, SNB, TCR, TXT, TXTZ, ZIP

Thanks. That looks as though it will do the trick.

AJ

I have a follow-up question. Does Calibre preview what the converted document will look like on an e-reader, or will I have to press-gang a friend into looking at it for me? I'm keen not to send the acquaintance a file of garbage.

AJ

Does Calibre preview what the converted document will look like on an e-reader

The Calibre software includes an e-book view. Once you create the e-pub if you double click on the title in the Calibre libry it will open the e-book viewer so you can view the e-pub. Also, if you click on an e-pub file the e-book viewer will also open up, unless you have another program set to be the default for that file type.

Calibre was originally designed as an e-book library management program, so an e-reader is a key part of it.

I also downloaded a couple of other free e-book readers so I cans ee what the file looks like in different readers. And they do show differently in different readers.

Thank you, that's a great help.

AJ

You could share the doc with your friend and he/she could annotate it if that's part of the plan.

Safer to do that by using DropBox. There's evidence Google mines what goes through Google Docs.

Those who protest it's existence would be better served pushing for better accountability.

I agree with your reasoning (about not wasting time worrying about the inevitable) but there are established safe alternatives, both for cloud storage (DB) and for email (they vary, but MS's default Explorer (?) is the absolute WORST!!!

I value my privacy, but I also accept that since cavemen sat talking around a fire, someone took the opportunity to eavesdrop.

I doubt if Google will try to beat you to publish, but they can use it for anything - they've already used the mined data from their products to target marketing, and to target people due to the political associations shown in the mined material - not sure where it will end.

For a simple story what does it really matter? The author has proof of upload and file creation that would predate and google obtained file. So unless you are writing the sequel to the latest blockbuster or plans to overthrow government, does it really matter?

Google doesn't sell the contents to advertisers, instead they sell "keyword access", so if a fictional character likes guns you'll automatically receive mail from the NRA. If a fictional character suffers from ED, you'll get inundated with Viagra ads, and as I intimated, if you're investigating story locations, you'll be buried under 'discount rates' for your next visit to someplace you've never been, and will likely never visit!

Very true, however you could do as I do, set a 'burn' email address that deletes all incoming mail. Handy for sites like google et al.

That's an option I haven't tried yet, although I have a range of different emails for different purposes, though my email program is pretty good about weeding out the junk (I no longer see any Viagra or "Meet singles in your area" ads).

Safer to do that by using DropBox. There's evidence Google mines what goes through Google Docs.

Yeah, that too. Every time I'd research locations for a new book, I'd get a string of ads from various car rental and hotels offering cheap fares on my "next trip" to whatever city I was writing about.

Of all the various 'Cloud based services, DB is the ONLY one which doesn't make their money off of data mining to third-party advertisers. Many people actively despise DB because of the founder's politics, and their policies could change overnight if they ever sell the company or take it public, as they're doing, but for now it's essentially the ONLY safe playfield in town!

Safer to do that by using DropBox. There's evidence Google mines what goes through Google Docs.

You could use BoxCryptor which lets you automatically encrypt anything stored on Dropbox, GoogleDrive, OneDrive, etc, etc.

https://www.boxcryptor.com/app/referral/?code=IRttHFtBqUCShjLF

I use it to ensure nobody can pry into anything I put on DropBox, etc, unless I want to share it (and BoxCryptor has ways to share encrypted files, too!)

Have you considered using google docs? You could share the doc with your friend and he/she could annotate it if that's part of the plan.

If the response is any more than 'loved it' (I wish!) or 'hated it', it would be an unexpected bonus.

I'm very suspicious of cloud storage after reports of celebs having nude pictures hacked. Not having thought it through, I was thinking of sending the epub as an e-mail attachment.

AJ

You do realise how vulnerable email is, don't you?

No, I suspect I'm underinformed on that. But media reports of hacking don't usually give the impression that e-mails were hacked in transit.

I guess it's probably a good idea if I don't label the attachment BeyoncesLatestCoochieFlash.epub ;)

AJ

very suspicious of cloud storage

There's an article from way back when a famous photographer lost hundreds of thousands of photographs in his cloud storage when they shut down at short notice. Millions of people lost data stored in the cloud when the US DoJ stole all the Megaupload storage and had it destroyed without checking the content fully or trying to return any of it.

If the response is any more than 'loved it' (I wish!) or 'hated it', it would be an unexpected bonus.

Sorry, Awnlee, I missed the context of your original post (assuming this is in reference to sending text copies to your beta-reader). For this, I'd suggest DB instead of Google docs, as whoever you're sending it to doesn't need to own a copy of DB (as they do with Google Docs), and if you send a WORD (or similar files), they'll automatically send them an readable online version that's easy to read. What's more DB doesn't datamine it's users data at all!

I'm very suspicious of cloud storage after reports of celebs having nude pictures hacked. Not having thought it through, I was thinking of sending the epub as an e-mail attachment.

Again, I've done that frequently and have never had a problem with it (he says, crossing his fingers and hoping his luck will continue). Though that may depend on which email client you use. For the record, I typically use Thunderbird, which like it's parent company, FireFox, is very good about protecting it's users to obnoxious data-mining companies like Google.

Have you considered using google docs? You could share the doc with your friend and he/she could annotate it if that's part of the plan.

I've always avoided Google Docs, based on the experiences of other author friends of mine. If Google ever gets a complaint about your writing from ANYONE, even if utterly without merit, they'll automatically delete your account, flushing ANY work you've ever done down the tubes, and there's no hope of EVER getting it back. What's more, there's no warning, and no review or objection process.

Thus, I simply don't trust Google with ANYTHING I can't afford to lose! :(

Does Calibre preview what the converted document will look like on an e-reader

Calibre is an ebook library and e-reader, and it also converts files. So yes.

ETA: Sorry, didn't read ahead to see that Ernest already answered this.

Sorry, didn't read ahead to see that Ernest already answered this.

No worries. Thanks to both of you.

AJ

I have a follow-up question. Does Calibre preview what the converted document will look like on an e-reader, or will I have to press-gang a friend into looking at it for me? I'm keen not to send the acquaintance a file of garbage.

There are various tools you can use for previewing epubs online, including one I use which displays them in FireFox (though it doesn't properly center centered graphic elements). For the other output formats, they each have their tools, the one I use most commonly is viewing how Amazon files look (which you can access during the submission process) of both phones and Kindles, in addition to iPhones and iPads.

It's not like the old days, when you had to curry favors with people who had each version of each vendors products. Now it's pretty easy to check how the text will appear.

What's the simplest way for a dummy like me to convert a plain text file into something an e-reader can understand?

The easiest is probably Calibre, which if you're not used to it, is itself a bitch! Instead, I'd simply email them the text copy (assuming it's saved (under Windows) as "enhanced text" so it preserves your bolding and italics). I typically send my editors my original WORD chapter files, though I have several editors who prefer to edit via standard or html-based email messages. Whichever way I can get it to them the most easily, but still can respond by telling them what I changed and what I didn't.

so it preserves your bolding and italics

I don't use either. I think I can tell a story adequately without them. Readers might beg to disagree.

AJ

I don't use either. I think I can tell a story adequately without them. Readers might beg to disagree.

I do it selectively, I only use bolding (within stories) for certain information, like announcements or book titles in the front matter of my books, or for my "To Be Continued" or "The End" concluding lines. However, I use italics to denote emphasis in speaking, so readers can pick on what the speaker (in dialogue) empahsizes as a way of identifying what he thinks is most important in his own statements. It may not be strictly necessary, but I like to think it makes the stories easier to read. Though honestly, no reader has either reported with it helps or is a distraction, so I don't known whether that means it's working, they don't notice it at or, or they're simply used to my doing it.

By the way, MANY authors agree with you, as bolding and italics are like internal dialogues (showing someone's thoughts), where some authors think it's fine, while others simply won't do it under any circumstances. But I suspect I'm in the minority in the amount of italics I include (as my many Forum posts aptly demonstrate).

I think the majority of my Writers' Group routinely use italics so I'm in a minority there. I'm not sure about bold. I can't remember much usage in the samples of their work that I've seen, but I can't say I was particularly looking for it.

AJ

I think the majority of my Writers' Group routinely use italics so I'm in a minority there. I'm not sure about bold. I can't remember much usage in the samples of their work that I've seen, but I can't say I was particularly looking for it.

Italics are normally what you'd use to emphasize something, while bolding is what you're use to SHOUT something, so bolding is normally held back for a few specialized cases. But what a LOT of newbie authors do, and I had to be broken of this habit myself, is they use a BUNCH of competing in-line formatting (italics sometimes, bolding others, and italic-bolding and/or underlining other times).

The key is, if you use in-line formatting at all, be consistent and don't keep changing it on the fly, as it's akin to adding extra exclamation marks to denote HOW upset someone is. That's really not what inline formatting is for, as adding twenty exclamation marks doesn't mean it's any more of an exclamation than a single one does. (You often see this on SOL to show just how earth-shattering the protonist's dates' orgasms are.)

I think the majority of my Writers' Group routinely use italics

I never use bold, but I use italics for emphasized words, direct thoughts, and uncommon foreign words or dialogue spoken in a foreign language. I also use them for sound effects.

In the past I sued the 'span' commands for in-line text colour. However, I find if I have the bold and italics defined in the css and I sue the in-line spand command for the application of them within the paragraph Calibre doesn't create an new mini-css for that chapter to add in it's own span commands and css for the bold and italics.

I went back and looked into that, trying to figure out how to limit the italic and bold commands in either the Style Defs or in the CSS, but couldn't figure out how to do it. It's easy to do with Style Defs, simply to preemptively deleting ALL the commands before defining you own, but that won't affect the in-line formatting. (< span>< /span> commands are just so inelligent, it grates on my inner programmer pride):(

(< span>< /span> commands are just so inelligent, it grates on my inner programmer pride):(

I agree, but the epub resulting from that html file is cleaner and smaller, so I just live with it.

I agree, but the epub resulting from that html file is cleaner and smaller, so I just live with it.

And I was still searching for a way to accomplish it from withing the central CSS (or using a single reference to the same style-definition html file)).

If I can find a way of combining them, I'll let you know, but until then, I'm still holding out hope that I'll eventually discover the Holy Grail. :(