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.
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.
It is designed as an intermediary language but it is hoped it can be a publishing language in its own right.
It can handle any type of book, from simple novels to very complex textbooks. Although similar to markdown it has a number of features to cope with the specific demands of book publishing:
1. The table of contents is compiled automatically using a simple, intuitive method;
2. No footnotes or endnotes;
3. Structural components unique to books are included e.g. scene breaks and page breaks;
4. Complex elements are included e.g. tables, links, images and indexes;
5. The final file is just a zip file; the manuscript is a plain text file.
UBook is a not-for-profit, open project designed to solve a problem. It simplifies the production of ebooks, and focuses on a universal method of doing so. It is at a pre-release stage, and I would welcome any insights you have to offer.
If you have an interest in ePublishing, web languages, HTML, markdown etc. please do check it out.