October 2004 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

jon said: > And when we at DP find a markup format we're comfortable with, > then PG had better get comfortable with it as well, because > we are now produce the vast majority of all PG material. "we make all your base." -bowerbird

3 2

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Why Bowerbird is a genius
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

marcello said: > Malicious tongues would argue that malicious tongues would, would they? but _your_tongue_ wouldn't, would it? > Malicious tongues would argue that > you want to keep beta-testers from > using their own ZML texts once they have helped me locate all the bugs in the program, i'll actively _want_ beta-testers to run their own z.m.l. texts. until then, though, i don't want somebody reporting a "bug" in the program that is _actually_ due to their improper z.m.l. you have to do things in the correct order, that's all. people also have to keep in mind that the rules of z.m.l. are also "in-progress" at the same time, being continually refined, as conditions require, so there are many open parameters here. use of a constrained set of texts is the logical course of action. > and discovering what a useless piece of crap your software is. well, much better to learn that early from the beta copy than having to wait all that time for the release version, don't you think? :+) -bowerbird p.s. one definition: "condone... 2. to give tacit approval to: _by_his_silence,_he_seemed_to_condone_their_behavior_." -- page 278, random house webster's college dictionary...

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book
by D. Starner 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

"David A. Desrosiers" writes: > > a big shame, since i.e. still has -- what -- 93% of all surfers? > > And decreasing every day. > > Users aren't using MSIE because it is the superior product, > they're using it because they have no idea there are significanly more > secure, functional, compliant browser alternatives out there, and > because it came with their pee-cee, with a nice convenient icon right > on their desktop. And nothing's going to fix that in the forseeable future. And what about us who serf the net through the services of a library, and have no option on which browser to use? I really think you'll are dismissing IE and Lynx too quickly. We can't just support Mozilla, now or in the future. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/20/2004 9:48:33 AM Mountain Standard Time, joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: The original page breaks were necessitated by the size of paper the publisher used. There is almost never a functional meaning to the page breaks in a book (except things like chapter breaks, which are easily marked up with horizontal rules or something to that effect). Speaking as a writer, I strongly disagree. I often use page breaks as a transition, and most other fiction writers do the same thing. (That's where I learned it.) To keep page breaks in a TXT version, simply insert # # # at the left margin where the page break belongs. That way TXT isn't confused or confusing, and the reader can see that as a page break. Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/20/2004 4:41:26 AM Mountain Standard Time, marcello(a)perathoner.de writes: Well same limitations for PDF. It hasn't stopped people from buying paper books. They've da** well stopped ME from buying paper books. I CAN'T READ THE BLOODY THINGS! I have about 800 paperback books right beside my bed that I CANNOT READ IN BED and most of them are in no other format. I read them in the living room, using a magnifying glass when necessary. Most of my hardcover books I can still read in the living room, but I can't read them in bed either. I'm to the point that I would far rather read a hundred- year-old book on screen than a brand new one on paper, even if it's a topic in which I am extremely interested. I'm really not interested in converstion from XTM or XTL or whatever it is, if you're expecting the reader to do the conversion. Back to my third-world schoolmaster with his donated 486 and a slow CD reader--if we send him a CD of PG books in English he can read them and he can use them to teach his students English, which will greatly improve their chances of finding decent work when they are adults. But he can do this only if the books are in TXT format. Please. I am not trying to start a flame war. I detest flame wars. I am simply returning, again and again, to Michael Hart's original vision. No matter what ELSE we do to the texts, we are betraying what makes PG special if we require everybody to have this program or that program which probably won't run on most obsolete or obsolescent computers. All this other stuff sounds grand. I wish I could understand it. But I can't. Neither can 99.9999999% of the other people who use PD. Anne

1 0

re: re: Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

the hacker said: > And decreasing every day. not nearly fast enough, though. :+) and given that today's machines will likely serve their owners needs -- i.e., do e-mail -- for the next decade, it's gonna be a long haul. > Users aren't using MSIE because it is the superior product d'uh... ;+) > they're using it because they have no idea there are > significanly more secure, functional, compliant > browser alternatives out there there are a lot of things that users "don't know". but unless you're willing to actually inform them -- which can be a _tremendously_ difficult job -- then you must accept that if you want to be of service to them, then you have to work within their limitations. project gutenberg wants to be of service to people; that's why it has been the most successful e-library. the alternative -- favored by most techies, it seems -- is to leave people behind. that's fine if you want to be a minority. i have been a mac user for a very long time, so that tells you where i stand on that matter personally. but know that people aren't going to be writing you letters thanking you for what you've done, like they do michael hart. > and because it came with their pee-cee, > with a nice convenient icon right on their desktop. monopolies suck, don't they... feel free to fight the power, but know that 85% of those 93% won't be bothered to follow you... -bowerbird

2 1

re: at a minimum, plain text and HTML
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

jim said: > I no longer believe it is worth spending my time on, > until somebody (else!) solves the issues I've just laid out. thanks to jim for saying what needs to be said. now one specific point about one of the paragraphs in his post... > we need a process, using open-source, cross-platform tools > -- the standarder the better -- to convert that XML > into, at a minimum, plain text and HTML. > Other formats are welcome but optional. if you're willing to settle for plain-text and .html, then doing the files in plain-text and refining your text2html converter is _far_ more cost-effective. if -- sometime down the line -- the move to x.m.l. really is inevitable (and not just hyped to be that), you will find that your text2html converter can be improved so that it will convert to x.m.l., and you will have saved yourself an enormous tagging job... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/20/2004 12:54:25 AM Mountain Standard Time, tb(a)baechler.net writes: I would like to see PG eventually go to xml not because I particularly like the format but because the new DAISY standard for digital talking books for the blind uses a form of xml. Thank you for this input. Anne

1 0

re: what i've been suggesting all along
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

marcello said: > What I've done with Faust is to > reformat the text file in a sensible way > and then use perl to automatically add TEI markup. bingo. now do that to the whole library. that's what i've been suggesting all along. > I advise to use a perl script to add the basic markup > and to refine the markup in a second markup-proofing step. i advise to write a program to add the basic markup (perl is fine, but so is any other tool someone uses), and then to refine your _program_ until you no longer need to do _any_ further refinements of its output. (or until it's easier to refine output than the program.) in the long run, doing things _that_ way will save you _tons_and_tons_ of unnecessary, one-time-only work. and, again, this is what i've been suggesting all along. now someone will come along and say, "that can't be done". and then i'll say "you're wrong, it can be done, i've done it." rinse and repeat, month after month, for nearly a year now. and no, i _won't_ do it for you, just to "prove" that i can... -bowerbird

2 1

re: re: Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

the hacker said: > I think you mean CSS. yes, that is exactly what i meant. how psychic of you to pick that up. ;+) -bowerbird

1 0