>and I’m happy to answer any questions about Standard Ebooks.

When will they start assigning catalog numbers to each of their works in the way that Project Guteneberg does? I'd like a unique id per ebook and since you don't (for obvious reasons) use ISBNs, there's nothing really to be done. I can't use an OCLC id because Standard Ebooks aren't consistently listed in Worldcat, I can't use Bookbrainz or Open Library ids for the same reason.

It costs nothing and is a low-effort fix. It's been an industry (and library science) thing for decades or longer. Can Standard Ebooks finally stop the amateur hour crap?

▲

acabal 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I know you griped about this in a different thread, but we won't be doing that, sorry. You can uniquely identify an ebook and its version by using dc:identifier in combination with dcterms:modified in the metadata file. If you desperately need a filesystem-safe string then concatenate those two and sha it.

	▲	NoMoreNicksLeft an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Sha's aren't human-readable, aren't concise. It's a shit way of doing it. Not that it matters, most of your catalog is done better by others, I'll just go with them. Why would I want books from people who have an aversion for doing things right?