2

By David Rothman

Tower of BabelUm, can Adobe kindly tell us just who’ll control the development and evolution of Mars—described as “an XML representation of PDF,” which itself is Adobe-bossed except for PDF/A and related flavors?

An “open” standard, even one using components from W3C, such as SVG, can still be as vendor-controlled as all get-out.

Read on to the questions at the end of this post. See why Adobe just might be creating some major problem for itself and rivals within its beloved IDPF—after holding itself out as standards-friendly and trusting of the organization.

Adobe’s do-it-yourself Tower of eBabel?

Between old-fashioned PDF, the OEBPS as currently almost supported by the public beta of Adobe’s Digital Editions (with proprietary DRM presumably on the way for protection-minded publishers), and Mars (perhaps accompanied by proprietary DRM but creating “protection”-related problems even if it isn’t), I’m in awe.

Might a whole new Tower of eBabel be under construction within just one company?

The pesky OEBPS question

I’d feel much better if Adobe would say, “Yes, Mars isn’t just an open standard—it’s entirely nonproprietary, and we’ll turn its evolution over to an OASIS technical committee.”

But then what about the OEBPS nirvana? So the IDPF‘s proudly announced container format is to hide a rat’s nest of formats? And at least somewhat reduce the importance of OEBPS (of which the container spec can allow just token use)?

“Embrace, Extend and Extinguish”?

Meanwhile I’ll be curious if certain publishers, lured by talk of easy conversion from PDF, will still fall for Adobe’s crafty campaign to undermine nonproprietary e-book standards.

Will Mars, perhaps like heavy use of Flash, be used as part of a Microsoft-style Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy? Along with proprietary DRM?

The M Word

Oh, and then there’s the issue of rival standards from the real Microsoft, whose existence Adobe often seems to ignore except when making anti-trust-related noises. Remember, Microsoft has its own XML-based PDF alternatives. The real commercial motive for the birth of Mars?

Like it or not, Adobe, the entire solar system might not revolve around you. Unless you assure us that Mars is nonproprietary, that no single company controls it, you’ll very well be undermining what little moral authority the IDPF has to summon up against Microsoft. A world without genuine standards won’t be pretty. Get set for Adobe to be WordPerfect II—ultimately crushed by Microsoft’s billions in R&D and marketing efforts.

The OpenReader alternative

Meanwhile true believers in nonproprietary standards may want to consider OpenReader, a clear-cut alternative to the confusing proprietary approaches brooked by the IDPF. While the container format is helpful, it is hardly a full-fledged Tower-razer. Mars appears to be just one more proprietary technology to be tucked away within the container format. Adobe should make Mars nonproprietary or forget about it.

The $64,000 Question

Even if Adobe won’t move the standard to OASIS, will the company at least move it to the IDPF? The only acceptable reply is “yes,” if Adobe is to avoid justifing accusations of hypocrisy. It must walk, not just talk, nonproprietary standards. No shades of gray allowed. Is Adobe for or against Team IDPF?

After all, Adobe e-book boss Bill McCoy says IDPF is the center of the universe of digital publications standards, and he depicts Mars as closely tied to the IDPF container format and OEBPS.

How can IDPF members ever, ever trust Adobe again, then, if it won’t turn Mars over to the group? We’re talking about a core format, not just DRM alone? If Adobe won’t at least release this standard to the IDPF, then Bill’s credibility will suffer a major blow—unwittingly self-inflicted.

Then again, things can cut either way. I’d love to be able to do an ESP act on Adobe rivals such as Sony, Mobipocket, eReader and Microsoft, especially if Bill does send the standard to the IDPF. Would Bill’s rivals enjoy seeing the IDPF officially bless an XML-based representation of PDF?

And speaking of the DRM side of standards rivalries within IDPF…

Just whose DRM will be used at the IDPF container level if OEBPS is included? OEBPS itself lacks DRM, and Mars won’t necessarily come with DRM. So will Adobe’s DRM be used, or that of its friends at ETI? An alliance?

I continue to believe that DRM is the Achilles Heel of the IDPF. And not just because of the proprietary/nonproprietary issue. Will Microsoft enjoy seeing its books sold with Adobe- or ETI-supplied DRM?

And if not, how many DRMs will a retailer have to pay for? If there are revenue splits among DRM providers, just how will things be handled?

And if the split approach won’t work, will this do in the container approach—except for, say, files containing Mars and OeBPS? So that the IDPF’s container effort will have been nothing more than a source of free labor and free PR for Adobe and perhaps ETI?

This is one messy tangle of worms.

 
2