Answers.Body: <p>Many of the ebook readers either have or have had their own format. Sony had the LRF format (more properly known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBeB" rel="noreferrer">Broadband eBook</a>), for example. Proprietary formats are designed for two reasons:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>to take advantage of special features of the hardware and software</li>
  <li>to lock users into the vendor's hardware and content ecosystem.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>Currently, there are at least five commonly used formats that are specifically designed for eBooks (as opposed to PDF which has broader aspirations and use).</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>MOBI (Mobipocket)</li>
  <li>AZW/KF8 (Kindle)</li>
  <li>iBook (Apple)</li>
  <li>LIT (Microsoft)</li>
  <li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB" rel="noreferrer">ePub</a> (open standard)</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>All of these formats are based on HTML, but with special wrappers, extensions, and/or Digital Rights Management (DRM).</p>
  
  <p>Of the five, ePub is the most open, and therefore preferred by technical consumers who don't like to be locked in to a particular company's hardware and/or software. This has lead most eBook hardware and software vendors to support ePub, as least for books acquired from other sources.</p>
  
  <p>A detailed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-book_formats" rel="noreferrer">comparison of eBook formats</a> is available on Wikipedia.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-19T13:59:11.523Z
Answers.Text: Lit has been discontinued along with the MS Reader, it hardly qualifies as a common format anymore. Oh and, for the record, LIT is a descendant of HTML as well, as it's based on CHM.
Answers.UserDisplayName: SáT
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-20T01:37:23.110Z
Answers.Text: @Chad HTML is not based on XML. XHTML is, but that's mostly unused nowadays.
Answers.UserDisplayName: svick
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-20T19:07:29.493Z
Answers.Text: @Chad - HTML and XML are both offshoots from SGML. I'm too lazy to find proper reference but if you google SGML HTML and XML together one is sure to be among the first results.
Answers.UserDisplayName: DVK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-20T19:10:04.913Z
Answers.Text: @DVK https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof - I am talking about the EPub standard not html/xml  I do not know why you guys are dwelling on that let it gol.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chad
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-20T19:11:27.460Z
Answers.Text: @Chad - you said "HTML is also XML based". And my comment was for eduction purposes, not proof purposes. If you want proof, post on Skeptics and someone will hunt one down :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: DVK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-20T19:12:54.880Z
Answers.Text: @DVK I said that I believe Epub was XML based not HTML Based  Though SGML may be the more accurate derivative.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chad
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-20T20:20:06.117Z
Answers.Text: @Donald.McLean - I think a link that agrees with that would help your answer.  Having worked with epub quite a bit(as well as being a professional web developer) I know that my content was not HTML, though I agree it is not as strict as the XML.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chad
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-19T05:07:58.347Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-12-19T14:03:56.027Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2013-12-19T14:03:56.027Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Donald.McLean
Body: <p>Different e-reader devices support different ebook formats. The main two seem to be ePub and MOBI. I'm wondering <em>why</em> we have two commonly-used formats. Do they have different technical advantages, rendering each format more suitable for certain uses? Or is it a matter of device manufacturers each wanting to do things their own way?</p>
  
Tags: <epub><mobi>
Title: Are there technical advantages of one common format over another?
UserDisplayName: Grant Palin
ThreadText: # Are there technical advantages of one common format over another?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-12-19)
  
  Different e-reader devices support different ebook formats. The main two seem to be ePub and MOBI. I'm wondering *why* we have two commonly-used formats. Do they have different technical advantages, rendering each format more suitable for certain uses? Or is it a matter of device manufacturers each wanting to do things their own way?
  
  **Tags:** epub, mobi
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-12-19. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  Many of the ebook readers either have or have had their own format. Sony had the LRF format (more properly known as [Broadband eBook](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBeB)), for example. Proprietary formats are designed for two reasons:
  
  1. to take advantage of special features of the hardware and software
  2. to lock users into the vendor's hardware and content ecosystem.
  
  Currently, there are at least five commonly used formats that are specifically designed for eBooks (as opposed to PDF which has broader aspirations and use).
  
  * MOBI (Mobipocket)
  * AZW/KF8 (Kindle)
  * iBook (Apple)
  * LIT (Microsoft)
  * [ePub](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB) (open standard)
  
  All of these formats are based on HTML, but with special wrappers, extensions, and/or Digital Rights Management (DRM).
  
  Of the five, ePub is the most open, and therefore preferred by technical consumers who don't like to be locked in to a particular company's hardware and/or software. This has lead most eBook hardware and software vendors to support ePub, as least for books acquired from other sources.
  
  A detailed [comparison of eBook formats](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-book_formats) is available on Wikipedia.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Lit has been discontinued along with the MS Reader, it hardly qualifies as a common format anymore. Oh and, for the record, LIT is a descendant of HTML as well, as it's based on CHM.  
  > **username_3**: @username_5 HTML is not based on XML. XHTML is, but that's mostly unused nowadays.  
  > **username_4**: @username_5 - HTML and XML are both offshoots from SGML. I'm too lazy to find proper reference but if you google SGML HTML and XML together one is sure to be among the first results.  
  > **username_5**: @username_4 https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof - I am talking about the EPub standard not html/xml  I do not know why you guys are dwelling on that let it gol.  
  > **username_4**: @username_5 - you said "HTML is also XML based". And my comment was for eduction purposes, not proof purposes. If you want proof, post on Skeptics and someone will hunt one down :)  
  > **username_5**: @username_4 I said that I believe Epub was XML based not HTML Based  Though SGML may be the more accurate derivative.  
  > **username_5**: @username_1 - I think a link that agrees with that would help your answer.  Having worked with epub quite a bit(as well as being a professional web developer) I know that my content was not HTML, though I agree it is not as strict as the XML.  
  
  ---
  
  