Jump to content

Mobipocket reader for Linux?


infosponge

Recommended Posts

I guess mac users are probably in the same boat too...anybody know of a reader/converter for the Mobipocket format that the new search page uses that will run on Linux? Or maybe there can be an option to just export the search results to a nice open XML format instead of something proprietary?

Link to comment

Cool! What PDA's use Linux? Or do you have a Linux/Mac laptop on the road?

 

The eBook format was designed to work on Palm and PocketPC/CE, which was the whole idea of Palmable geocaching. At least that's what I thought the desire was here.

 

MobiPocket recently came out with an 9X/ME/XP/2k edition reader, so it wouldn't be a shock if they were working on a Linux/Mac version. I'll also be looking into alternate methods of distribution as well.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

I use a Linux laptop when I travel for any period of time...it would be cool to browse a catalog of caches offline using the eBook reader.

Some kind of XML option would be really nice...imagine being able to run a program on the search results to generate a set of static HTML pages (or even an SWF Flash-player file) that had a browsable map interface with navigation keys and clicking on cache locations would pop up the cache info, etc...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:

Many Ipaq users (which I am not) run Linux. My laptop does join me on the road and it runs Linux.


The eBook itself is compiled for the reader on the PDA, so as long as the sync software they use in Linux will let them transfer the reader program and the ebook, they'll enjoy the same functionality as their non-Windows counterparts. And this will be true for Mac users as well.

 

-Elias

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:

Many Ipaq users (which I am not) run Linux.


The eBook itself is compiled for the reader on the PDA, so as long as the sync software they use in Linux will let them transfer the reader program and the ebook, they'll enjoy the same functionality as their non-Windows counterparts. And this will be true for Mac users as well.

 

-Elias


 

Good point, but wrong processor. The problem case isn't Ipaq users are running Linux on their laptops and using that to do the hot-sync. pilot-xfer and friends solve that problem just fine. The actual Ipaq runs Linux on it. (Not Palm/OS, WinCE, etc.) When I looked at the web site, they didn't have a reader for these users.

 

This would be a problem for anyone running a PDA/OS/OSVersion combination that isn't explictly supported by mobibook.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by infosponge:

I'm puzzled why a site that is so community-based and would be dead without the good vibes of it's community users is always making "closed" vs. "open" choices that favor "closed". icon_frown.gif


 

MobiPocket eBook Reader appears to support the Open eBook format that was discussed here before. If that's what the results from the search page are, then they're just XML, and the spec is published on the web. Of course, I don't know because I haven't actually ponied up the $30 yet.

 

Edit: You can find a free-as-in-beer Linux/Mac Open eBook reader at http://www.ionsystems.com/emonocle/ . It's designed for use by the visually impaired, but it'd probably work just fine for the rest of us.

Assuming, of course, that these ebooks aren't in the "secure mobipocket" format, which would be just wrong.

 

warm.gif

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on July 11, 2002 at 02:33 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by infosponge:

I'm puzzled why a site that is so community-based and would be dead without the good vibes of it's community users is always making "closed" vs. "open" choices that favor "closed". icon_frown.gif


 

MobiPocket eBook Reader appears to support the Open eBook format that was discussed here before. If that's what the results from the search page are, then they're just XML, and the spec is published on the web. Of course, I don't know because I haven't actually ponied up the $30 yet.

 

Edit: You can find a free-as-in-beer Linux/Mac Open eBook reader at http://www.ionsystems.com/emonocle/ . It's designed for use by the visually impaired, but it'd probably work just fine for the rest of us.

Assuming, of course, that these ebooks aren't in the "secure mobipocket" format, which would be just wrong.

 

warm.gif

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on July 11, 2002 at 02:33 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

MobiPocket eBook Reader appears to support the Open eBook format that was discussed here before. If that's what the results from the search page are, then they're just XML,


Once I get past that license on the new stuff, I'll check it out. So far, I haven't decided to accept it. A reading of http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/agreement.asp prohibits, for example, handing my GPS to a friend to find a cache (violates the "single user" clause) and would hose up my backup schedule (the "single copy for archival" thing) so I'm still deciding if this is useful to me at all.

 

quote:

Edit: You can find a free-as-in-beer Linux/Mac Open eBook reader at http://www.ionsystems.com/emonocle/ .


But not free-as-in-liberty or with source available. So for someone with, say, a Sharp Zaurus is still out of the game. But I'm not ready to fixate on specific PDA s/w yet becuase if the data is open, the readers will come.

quote:

Assuming, of course, that these ebooks aren't in the "secure mobipocket" format, which would be just wrong.


That very question came up the last time PDA/XML formats were discussed and it went unanswered. There was mention of the distrubion being "a binary format" which pure XML is definitely not so there were some raised eyebrows.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by infosponge:

I guess mac users are probably in the same boat too...anybody know of a reader/converter for the Mobipocket format that the new search page uses that will run on Linux? Or maybe there can be an option to just export the search results to a nice open XML format instead of something proprietary?


 

Lots of luck. Mobi is a Windows thang. If you want to get palmable geocaching info from mac or linux onto your pda try this

 

http://www.pathetique.com/geocaching/expl.html

 

The plucker solution is linux, *nix and windows supported and I think with OS X might be mac usable.

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

So if Mac, Windows, Linux , AIX, SunOs, Palm, WinCE, AmigaOs, etcetc can all read and render HTML / XML on thier screens....why is it that things are done up in proprietary formats?

 

For instance.. Ebooks from project Gutenberg

http://www.gutenberg.net//

are in text so that everyone can read them. SOme of the more compex ones are in html. But in this OPEN format I can take a file from Projet Gutenberg and put it on my Palm, read it on a Win box, alinux box, a mac box, even a old 286 dos box etc... with one of about a hundred programs that can read text or html...or I can print it out and read it. I can also copy it 100 times and pass it on to a friend and im not considered a criminal.

 

Now the stuff you will find listed on Mobibook.com..well that will cost you a few bucks to get something like a dictonary (free over at Gutenberg) and it comes wrapped up in its own format so only a MOBI reader can view it...and oh yeah you have to agree to a license that makes you a cirminal for making a copy for yourself or letting someone else read it. Now when I buy a paperback or hardcovered book do I get called a crinimal for passing on the book when Im done with it. heck would that make everyone at Bookcrossing.com criminals?

 

You see the problem here?:(-

 

So why use proprietary formats with limted platform availability in an age where there are ways to get stuff out to nearly everyone?

 

-tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

So if Mac, Windows, Linux , AIX, SunOs, Palm, WinCE, AmigaOs, etcetc can all read and render HTML / XML on thier screens....why is it that things are done up in proprietary formats?

 

For instance.. Ebooks from project Gutenberg

http://www.gutenberg.net//

are in text so that everyone can read them. SOme of the more compex ones are in html. But in this OPEN format I can take a file from Projet Gutenberg and put it on my Palm, read it on a Win box, alinux box, a mac box, even a old 286 dos box etc... with one of about a hundred programs that can read text or html...or I can print it out and read it. I can also copy it 100 times and pass it on to a friend and im not considered a criminal.

 

Now the stuff you will find listed on Mobibook.com..well that will cost you a few bucks to get something like a dictonary (free over at Gutenberg) and it comes wrapped up in its own format so only a MOBI reader can view it...and oh yeah you have to agree to a license that makes you a cirminal for making a copy for yourself or letting someone else read it. Now when I buy a paperback or hardcovered book do I get called a crinimal for passing on the book when Im done with it. heck would that make everyone at Bookcrossing.com criminals?

 

You see the problem here?icon_smile.gif-

 

So why use proprietary formats with limted platform availability in an age where there are ways to get stuff out to nearly everyone?

 

-tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:

A reading of http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/agreement.asp prohibits, for example, handing my GPS to a friend to find a cache (violates the "single user" clause) and would hose up my backup schedule (the "single copy for archival" thing) so I'm still deciding if this is useful to me at all.

 


 

Yeah, before I even opened the file to read the agreement I had sent a copyo ff to another email account and to my wifes account so she could put it on her Palm.

 

We were waiting last night for our door to be busted down by the DRM police:)-

 

So instead we just deleted the files off of her account and Palm. But since she is the one who does a lot of the map readings I guese she will have to make her own account (she was just using the TeamWSMF account) and put more of a load on the geocaching servers to grab her own copies.

 

But she was none to happy witht he whole deal so she is just grabbing a copy of the plucker geocache docs from me.

 

-tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:

A reading of http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/agreement.asp prohibits, for example, handing my GPS to a friend to find a cache (violates the "single user" clause) and would hose up my backup schedule (the "single copy for archival" thing) so I'm still deciding if this is useful to me at all.

 


 

Yeah, before I even opened the file to read the agreement I had sent a copyo ff to another email account and to my wifes account so she could put it on her Palm.

 

We were waiting last night for our door to be busted down by the DRM policeicon_smile.gif-

 

So instead we just deleted the files off of her account and Palm. But since she is the one who does a lot of the map readings I guese she will have to make her own account (she was just using the TeamWSMF account) and put more of a load on the geocaching servers to grab her own copies.

 

But she was none to happy witht he whole deal so she is just grabbing a copy of the plucker geocache docs from me.

 

-tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

MobiPocket eBook Reader appears to support the Open eBook format that was discussed here before. If that's what the results from the search page are, then they're just XML, and the spec is http://www.openebook.org/oebps/oebps1.0.1/download/2001-07-02_OEBPS1.0.1_recommended/hoeb101.htm. Of course, I don't know because I haven't actually ponied up the $30 yet.


 

Bleah. Well, I ponied up the $30, and while I don't think it was a waste of money and was planning to do so anyway, I don't think this "eBook" thing is going to work. Y'see, the problem is that the idiots at mobi-whatever have co-opted the creator and type IDs of the existing palmdoc format (which is a serious no-no) and then put some sort of encrypted or nonstandard compression method (as if there's a difference) garbage in the actual text area. Not only does that mean the file is completely useless without their reader, but it makes other doc readers like TealDoc crash because they try to treat it like any other document.

 

That is simply unacceptable. Can't we just get the XML-formatted Open eBook data without having to get our hands all dirty with this mobipocket crap?

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

The scope of this project was to provide an eBook for Palms and Pocket PCs. Our evaluation of available eBook formats and software led us to Mobipocket for their combination of a free multiplatform reader application, and a well designed backend tool we could use to create these books easily.

 

Another goal was to make this easy and user-friendly for the vast majority of Geocachers. I think the Mobipocket setup we've created does this, and will serve the community well. I understand that for more techie users that this isn't considered an ideal solution. But we needed a format and software that we could support for our diverse and large scale audience.

 

Version 2 of the Pocket Query tool will include an option to get the results retuned in GPX format and should be sufficient for what some of you are wanting to do. But just keep in mind that the vast majority of Geocachers wouldn't know what to do with GPX, so it made more sense for us to concentrate on the eBook format first.

 

-Elias

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

Another goal was to make this easy and user-friendly for the vast majority of Geocachers.


 

See, there's the problem. I don't think "crashes TealDoc and forces a hard reset" is even in the same universe as "easy and user-friendly" let alone in the same ballpark.

 

I've since found a description of the algorithm that Mobipocket uses for their so-called "XDOC" format, so it might be possible to extract the original text if I weren't so scared of the DMCA.

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

Another goal was to make this easy and user-friendly for the vast majority of Geocachers. I think the Mobipocket setup we've created does this, and will serve the community well. I understand that for more techie users that this isn't considered an ideal solution. But we needed a format and software that we could support for our diverse and large scale audience.


 

And a Web Browser would not be User Friendly?

 

Also, is it very user friendly to foist yet another Legal License Agreement on folks for reading the text they put into gc.com in the first place?

 

Im not trying to bust nuts here, I dev for a living and my stuff has to be UI'd for the lowest common userbase, so I know all the sides of user ability levels and the like.

 

But given the fact that most of the Pocket devices like Plam and WinCE already have HTML readers, whats the sense of putting the data into a closed, shut and ridged format like Mobi's?

 

Given the great useable data and service I have gotten from Brain's efforts at http://www.pathetique.com/geocaching/expl.html there is little doubt there IS a better less obtrusive way to get the data out not just for "tech" folks but for "just folks".

 

-Perplexedly tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

See, there's the problem. I don't think "crashes TealDoc and forces a hard reset" is even in the same universe as "easy and user-friendly" let alone in the same ballpark.


I happen to totally agree with you that if in fact Mobipocket is using improper type IDs in their software or their eBooks, then that is a serious bug. But it should be treated as a bug and reported to Mobipocket so it can be fixed (and I'll do that). All software contains bugs, and you certainly found one with Mobipocket, but again, to suggest that this impacts the user-friendliness of the application for the majority of geocachers, seems like a stretch to me.

 

quote:
I've since found a description of the algorithm that Mobipocket uses for their so-called "XDOC" format, so it might be possible to extract the original text if I weren't so scared of the DMCA.

Perhaps I've missed something... What does the DMCA have to do with this?

 

-Elias

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

I've since found a description of the algorithm that Mobipocket uses for their so-called "XDOC" format, so it might be possible to extract the original text if I weren't so scared of the DMCA.


 

If the data was passed to the user as XML there are a number of ways to get it into one of a number of formats...

 

http://www.ebookstools.net/xml2lit/xml2lit_e.htm

 

"This program con­verts XML file in­to vari­ous for­mats of elec­tro­nic books. The cur­rent ver­sion allows to con­vert in­to LIT (Micro­soft Rea­der), XDOC (Mobi­pocket Publi­sher), TXT and HTML. TXT and HTML af­ter that can be con­ver­ted in­to PalmDoc for­mat (PRC and PDB ex­ten­ti­ons)… "

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by TeamWSMF:

And a Web Browser would not be User Friendly?


Its a judgement call. Since Palms don't come with a browser by default, and Pocket IE isn't available for Palm, then we'd have to find a browser for Palm. The eBook made sense to us since we develop for the book, and Mobipocket has and supports readers for both platforms (including a Windows PC). But in order to e-mail HTML results out on a schedule, we'd have to ZIP or TAR the files, or use some form of compiled HTML. So to us, it seemed easier and more convenient for the average geocacher to get a single file that will work on both a Palm or Pocket PC (which was the intent of Pocket Query feature).

 

quote:
Also, is it very user friendly to foist yet another Legal License Agreement on folks for reading the text they put into gc.com in the first place?

Its not really another license agreement. Its the same one we require for LOC files. So for people who hadn't used the LOC file download feature, this is here as well.

 

quote:
Im not trying to bust nuts here, I dev for a living and my stuff has to be UI'd for the lowest common userbase, so I know all the sides of user ability levels and the like.

I know, and that's cool. I respect and understand that you may have approached this feature differently than we did. Its only natural for different developers to come up with different ways to approach a problem. In fact, even Jeremy and I almost always come up with very different solutions to a problem or feature. But, rightly or wrongly, we concluded that a single file download in eBook format would address the portable data feature best.

 

-Elias

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

I know, and that's cool. I respect and understand that you may have approached this feature differently than we did.


 

Man, I have got to be coming across as the loud mouth know nothing end user with a bad word to say about everything.:)-

 

Sorry about that. I think becuase I dig the potential of this place so much I get a bit passionate with my posts. Your response is much more gracious than mine would have been if I were the tech dealing with the ugly end user.

 

I dig what you and the Jman are doing, I dig the way this place runs and allows folks to become a community. The only gripes I got are the little thorns like picking eula riddle software and methods that dont optimize the data flow (READ ONLY for those who still think im advocating a wild west in the DB state) resources that the user base could offer.

 

(see there I go again)

 

I respect the efforts, I just think the methods can be tightened up.

 

-tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

I know, and that's cool. I respect and understand that you may have approached this feature differently than we did.


 

Man, I have got to be coming across as the loud mouth know nothing end user with a bad word to say about everything.icon_smile.gif-

 

Sorry about that. I think becuase I dig the potential of this place so much I get a bit passionate with my posts. Your response is much more gracious than mine would have been if I were the tech dealing with the ugly end user.

 

I dig what you and the Jman are doing, I dig the way this place runs and allows folks to become a community. The only gripes I got are the little thorns like picking eula riddle software and methods that dont optimize the data flow (READ ONLY for those who still think im advocating a wild west in the DB state) resources that the user base could offer.

 

(see there I go again)

 

I respect the efforts, I just think the methods can be tightened up.

 

-tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

I'll second what Tom said...we may gripe about the way certain things are done or solutions are approached, but that should not diminish the fact that you guys have done and continue to do great things to feed this geo-addiction we all share, and that is much appreciated. icon_smile.gif

A lot of us come from a more open-source perspective (I have a lot of clients paying me big bucks to lead them down that path) and so it is probably an issue close to our hearts when our favorite hobby and our favorite software philosophy are at odds.

I think we just need to get Jeremy to move further away from Microsof HQ there in Washington...all the combined negative energy...whew! I don't know if I'd be able to resist either. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I'll second what Tom said...we may gripe about the way certain things are done or solutions are approached, but that should not diminish the fact that you guys have done and continue to do great things to feed this geo-addiction we all share, and that is much appreciated. icon_smile.gif

A lot of us come from a more open-source perspective (I have a lot of clients paying me big bucks to lead them down that path) and so it is probably an issue close to our hearts when our favorite hobby and our favorite software philosophy are at odds.

I think we just need to get Jeremy to move further away from Microsof HQ there in Washington...all the combined negative energy...whew! I don't know if I'd be able to resist either. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:Its not really another license agreement. Its the same one we require for LOC files.

 

But now it's more comprehensive. The data contained in the .loc files (which requires the license) is entirely contained in the cache page itself (which does not require the license). It's just a more convenient format to machine process Since the pages themselves don't require the license, there is some latitude in reuse of the data. The logs, for example, couldn't have been covered under the old scope of the license becuase you couldn't get the data using only services that required acceptance.

 

Now the cache description (and logs, etc.) are covered under the license when obtained in the new way. Again, it is a duplicate of data that can be obtained without it, so I'm not sure how much "teeth" it actually has. But the "creeping license" on our data is uncomforting.

 

Jeremy and Elian, please consider less restrictive redistribution terms of the data. People WANT to reuse this (our) data to provide statistics for local clubs, customized maps, personalized tools, and so on.

 

I'm not interested in hosing anybody from the advertising revenues on the web pages or anything. A rule that the data could be redistributed only to members would be fine with me, for example. We're not looking for 'something for nothing'; we're looking for the ability to provide services with the data to the community that are too specialized for Groundspeak to offer.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

quote:
I've since found a description of the algorithm that Mobipocket uses for their so-called "XDOC" format, so it might be possible to extract the original text if I weren't so scared of the DMCA.

Perhaps I've missed something... What does the DMCA have to do with this?


 

Unfortunately, the only difference between the "free" Mobipocket format and the "secure" Mobipocket format is... well, nothing really.

 

XDOC is a DOC file with some extra stuff in the header, including a title key and some information on who's allowed to read that document. And here's where DMCA comes in: the title key, the info on who's allowed to read it, and the document itself are all encrypted using what is supposed to be a private key (but the key is actually known to a few people out there on the Internet.)

 

That means that creating or possessing an application to do anything with MobiPocket data without the express permission of whoever makes Mobipocket is, for now, a DMCA violation, just like decss. Were I to make such an application available, I would effectively be creating a tool that could be used to extract the text from any Mobipocket formatted document, including the "secure" ones. I don't think they'd let me get away with it for long, do you?

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

I wrote a little something y'all can play with in your spare time, if you promise to be easy on my poor server. First, a word about my server: it is a vastly underpowered (AMD K6-2/400, 256M RAM) machine on the far end of a 128k ADSL link, so it might be a little slow. If I see excessive traffic, or a lot of abuse, I'll shut down this service in the blink of an eye. Please save your results rather than using my script to regenerate them each time, use the most restrictive query terms possible, and make sure you have a use for the data before sending your file (i.e. please don't send a file just to browse.)

 

It's probably still a DMCA violation for me to possess the underlying code, even without publishing it, but since the public interface can't be used by the general public to extract mobipocket documents that aren't geocaching.com pocket queries, it's not likely to attract too much attention (I hope.) I don't keep any copies of your .prc file or the decrypted version, so you're probably not violating the geocaching.com EULA by sending them; let your conscience and/or your lawyer be your guide.

 

Go here and send your mobipocket .prc file and it'll return the HTML/XML Open eBook data that's embedded in it.

 

I hope some of y'all find this useful...

 

Edit: as of right now it doesn't support the images that are embedded after the HTML data. Perhaps in a future revision...

 

warm.gif

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on July 16, 2002 at 10:14 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

The scope of this project was to provide an eBook for Palms and Pocket PCs. Our evaluation of available eBook formats and software led us to Mobipocket for their combination of a free multiplatform reader application, and a well designed backend tool we could use to create these books easily.

 

Another goal was to make this easy and user-friendly for the vast majority of Geocachers. I think the Mobipocket setup we've created does this, and will serve the community well. I understand that for more techie users that this isn't considered an ideal solution. But we needed a format and software that we could support for our diverse and large scale audience.

 

Version 2 of the Pocket Query tool will include an option to get the results retuned in GPX format and should be sufficient for what some of you are wanting to do. But just keep in mind that the vast majority of Geocachers wouldn't know what to do with GPX, so it made more sense for us to concentrate on the eBook format first.

 

-Elias


 

GPX is another proprietary format, but at least it's XML based. It also doesn't have all of the information one would want for a cache record.

 

I think what you've done with mobi is a very good start, but I strongly suggest that the next step be a much more open format and one worked out with the direct input of those people in the user community who care about such things.

 

It is highly desirable that the data format be open, well documented, and available under a non-objectionable license like the GPL (notice I said data *format* -- license for the actual data is a different issue.)

 

It seems to me that thinking of GPX as an option is a good first step, but GPX is a Topographix proprietary format and isn't complete. A better solution would be to write an open standard for cache data interchange as an XML dtd and license it under the GPL. Then it would be easy to write a converter from that to open ebook (which is what mobi reads to produce their closed ebook format)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

GPX is another proprietary format, but at least it's XML based. It also doesn't have all of the information one would want for a cache record.


GPX is *not* proprietary. The spec is public. Participation in the spec process is free. Yes, Topografix was a major motivator in it, but it's supported by a growing number of programs. And while GPX itself doesn't mandate tags that would be specific to geocaching (of course) it does define the way to extend the spec in a portable and open way that's consistent with XML DTD stuff. There are existence proofs of such extensions discussed in the GPX developers lists.

 

Working with the data in GPX would be much more pleasant than the encrypted (grrr) mobi format. Maybe even if the "unadulterated" ebook format would be enough if the rest of the cache information was there.

quote:

It is highly desirable that the data format be open, well documented, and available under a non-objectionable license


GPX accomplishes all these points. See http://www.topografix.com/gpx.asp

Link to comment

A couple of people have asked what's behind my script. DMCA notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure it's still legal to post a link to the document I got the description of the encoding from; mirror it quickly, though, lest it disappear:

 

The key and a description of the differences from Palm Doc format can be found here.

 

The web page that article refers to is no longer there, of course. Some people are really touchy about websites that claim the emperor is naked.

 

Software for converting (properly formatted) Palm doc files to text is here.

 

I just modified txt2pdbdoc to decrypt each record before decompressing, using the (ugly, badly written) Pukall decryption code referred to by the first article above. The resulting code, even though created from two completely legal programs, is quite possibly a federal crime to own or manufacture, so make sure you are willing to accept the attendant risks before you fire up that text editor.

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

GPX is another proprietary format, but at least it's XML based. It also doesn't have all of the information one would want for a cache record.


GPX is *not* proprietary. The spec is public. Participation in the spec process is free. Yes, Topografix was a major motivator in it, but it's supported by a growing number of programs. And while GPX itself doesn't mandate tags that would be specific to geocaching (of course) it does define the way to extend the spec in a portable and open way that's consistent with XML DTD stuff. There are existence proofs of such extensions discussed in the GPX developers lists.

 

Working with the data in GPX would be much more pleasant than the encrypted (grrr) mobi format. Maybe even if the "unadulterated" ebook format would be enough if the rest of the cache information was there.

quote:

It is highly desirable that the data format be open, well documented, and available under a non-objectionable license


GPX accomplishes all these points. See http://www.topografix.com/gpx.asp

 

GPX is owned by topografix. It is not available under a non-objectionable license. It is not intended for geocaching.

 

It is possible that all three of these things could change. I've been on the forum for a while and seen no discussion on any of the three, nor started no discussion.

 

Perhaps you can point me at a document on the Topographix web site that contains the non-objectionable license?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Perhaps you can point me at a document on the Topographix web site that contains the non-objectionable license?


 

Citing http://www.topografix.com/gpx_for_developers.asp

 

GPX is an open standard. Anyone may use it, and there are no fees or licensing involved.


 

Thank you. That takes care of my biggest concern about GPX.

 

The second is that it's not suitable for geocaching.

 

Does anyone know when geocaching.com will start a discussion on the GPX mailing list about extending GPX so it will be suitable for geocaching? I'm looking forward to such a discussion.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Does anyone know when geocaching.com will start a discussion on the GPX mailing list about extending GPX so it will be suitable for geocaching? I'm looking forward to such a discussion.


As you've pointed out, GPX wasn't designed for Geocaching specifically. It was designed as a new "standard" for transferring GPS type data. Part of the GPX design and spec allows developers to add private elements to the schema so that additional data for their particular application can be added to GPX. We'll use these private elements to add the necessary data required to make GPX suitable for Geocaching.

 

Since we only plan to extend GPX using private elements, there's really no reason to enter in a discussion with other GPX developers at this time. Once we've determined what private elements we choose to add, we'll certainly share our extensions so others can take advantage of them, but I doubt that the majority of the GPX developer community really cares to hear about our private extensions.

 

On the other hand, should we come across an extension that we feel would be more appropriate to be part of the base GPX specification, we'll definately propose it to the GPX developer forum for consideration and they'll ultimately decide if it warrants inclusion in the base spec. But at this stage in our development of a GPX format, we haven't come across this yet.

 

-Elias

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Elias:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

Does anyone know when geocaching.com will start a discussion on the GPX mailing list about extending GPX so it will be suitable for geocaching? I'm looking forward to such a discussion.


As you've pointed out, GPX wasn't designed for Geocaching specifically. It was designed as a new "standard" for transferring GPS type data. Part of the GPX design and spec allows developers to add private elements to the schema so that additional data for their particular application can be added to GPX. We'll use these private elements to add the necessary data required to make GPX suitable for Geocaching.

 

Since we only plan to extend GPX using private elements, there's really no reason to enter in a discussion with other GPX developers at this time. Once we've determined what private elements we choose to add, we'll certainly share our extensions so others can take advantage of them, but I doubt that the majority of the GPX developer community really cares to hear about our private extensions.

 

On the other hand, should we come across an extension that we feel would be more appropriate to be part of the base GPX specification, we'll definately propose it to the GPX developer forum for consideration and they'll ultimately decide if it warrants inclusion in the base spec. But at this stage in our development of a GPX format, we haven't come across this yet.

 

-Elias


 

"private extension" is hardly consistent with "open standard". If you're not going to have an open format you're not, and it's just confusing people (me) to say that you are.

 

Also, I would point out that the GPX web site says:

 

Submit your private extensions to the GPX Developers Forum.

If enough people find them useful, we'll add them to the public specification.

 

as one of the requirements for using the spec.

 

Anyway, something that's useful to a community as large as the geocaching community and is supposed to be part of an open standard should be discussed in an open standard forum, not developed in a private proprietary fashion.

 

It's in the interest of us users to have open standards because then more software will get developed to use them.

 

It's in the interest of geocaching.com because more tools means more users means a growing hobby.

 

In this case an open standard openly developed benefits everybody and a closed standard is likely to find you in the several months in the same position your in now with moby: with a tool that many of the people it was intended for can't use.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

"private extension" is hardly consistent with "open standard". If you're not going to have an open format you're not, and it's just confusing people (me) to say that you are.


 

Personally, I'm all for open standards too, but I think you're being deliberately difficult about this. The GPX Schema contains these two lines, at the bottom of the schema:

quote:
  <!--  you can add your own privately defined wpt elements at the end of the wpt   -->   <xsd:any namespace="##other" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" /> 

So as long as the private elements are at the end of the wpt element and they conform to the namespace rules, it's still a compliant GPX file. The presence of those private elements does not make the file unusable by GPX-compliant programs, and they may contain information that would not otherwise be in a GPX file (say, a decoded geocache hint or a log entry; how useful are those to the average user of the GPX format?) Nobody's said the format of those private elements won't be documented, just that there won't be a concerted effort to add them to GPX.

 

Let the admins and the developers do what they're going to do, and reserve any complaining until there's something worth complaining about. Yeah, mobipocket was a bad idea, but it's not like they're deliberately trying to keep us from having a use for these tools. Cut 'em some slack.

 

Development by committee never works anyway, so this "non-open" process is far more likely to actually get results than something that's open to discussion from the start.

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

"private extension" is hardly consistent with "open standard". If you're not going to have an open format you're not, and it's just confusing people (me) to say that you are.


 

Will you please lighten up a little on this subject? GPX is meant to be extensible. There are explict provisions in it for it to be extended. (If not, it wouldn't be nearly as useful.) Look in the gpsxml archives for discussions on how this has been done successfully in the recent past and examples of how it can be done.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...