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

re: Re: [gutvol-d] responses in the hopper
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

anne said: > Only if done with a wink. Like this-- ;-) wonderful! ;+) -bowerbird

1 0

responses in the hopper
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

i've got responses in the hopper to jeroen, jon, stephen, karl, and scott. (being a troll is hard work, but somebody's gotta do it; and god gave me the looks.) ;+) but i'll save all those until monday, give everyone some time to reflect, rest, maybe write their own post... but my bottom-line summary is this: 1) z.m.l. is a fantastic format for users, in the hands of an intelligent viewer-app; 2) z.m.l. can be a great master-format, as it's easy to create and maintain; and 3) though z.m.l. will create other formats, people will prefer z.m.l., due to the viewer. doubt it? then join the beta-test, and tear my little baby to shreds... zml_talk-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com oh, i wrote a reply to josh too. that one i'll save until tuesday... or wednesday... or next month... :+) just one thing before i go, so i can give stephen the weekend to get a head-start... stephen said: > In a plain text file, we do make some effort to > distinguish different elements of a work: > quotations are indented, headings in UPPER CASE and > centered, etc. But any kind of complexity in the work > tends quickly to make that unworkable. my findings are that you are _incorrect_ in that assessment. i don't believe you can show me many e-texts from the library that i cannot format unequivocally using zen markup language. the figure i usually give is 3%, which now is 420+ e-texts, but i'll be surprised if the number you can find gets that high. frankly, i don't think you'll be able to find more than a few... but you are welcome to try... dig up a list (of 20-40?) e-texts from the library that you think can not be handled with my z.m.l., and i'll take a look at them and see if you're right... give it your best shot... (if anyone wants to help stephen out with some pointers to some particularly difficult e-texts, send him a backchannel!) *** have a nice weekend, everyone! -bowerbird p.s. i'm still wondering if name-calling and personal attacks are condoned here...

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] responses in the hopper
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/15/2004 6:13:45 PM Mountain Standard Time, Bowerbird(a)aol.com writes: >>p.s. i'm still wondering if name-calling >>and personal attacks are condoned here... Only if done with a wink. Like this-- ;-) Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it...
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

In a message dated 10/15/2004 12:51:30 PM Mountain Standard Time, gbnewby(a)pglaf.org writes: In short, sniffing old books can get you high and/or cause hallucination. And if you have asthma . . . I'm trying to work (my own, not PGLAF's) on copying some 1930s translations of Ancient Egyptian medical textbooks. I need them for a book I'm writing. Egad! They are killing me! But just in case anyone wonders, the Egyptians by about 2500 to 3000 BCE had medicine at a height it wouldn't reach again until the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Imhotep was both the architect for the Great Pyramid AND the author of the first surgical textbook known to have existed. He got a lot of practice by studying people who had been injured at the construction sight, but he clearly also accompanied an army into battle at least once, because he also describes battlefield injuries. I would scan them for PGLAF before sending them back to the universities they came from, but my scanner program has indigestion. It's glad to photocopy, but if I ask it to scan and save it lies down and turns up its little curly toes, insisting it HAS saved when it patently has not. Also, one of the books is somewhat bigger than my scanner. Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it...
by Dennis McCarthy 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

I started e-books in the old days when PG was only plain text. Then after quite a long lapse I had returned to discover that I could release a book in HTML if I wished, supplying a standard TXT along with it. I am happy with this arrangement, sometimes doing both HTML and TXT, and sometimes just TXT depending on how highly formatted the original was. I tend to work the opposite way, though, doing the HTML first (using a text editor incidentally), then stripping the code for the TXT. It is probably not the most efficient way, but hobbies are not supposed to be efficient. I am ignorant too about the acronyms you mentioned. I am also very pragmatic, and hope to remain totally ignorant of these until someone proves to me--with a history of examples--that it is worth it. TXT and HTML have such histories, so I shall stick with these for now. Regarding HTML, some thoughts. . . - Use the full range of tags when appropriate (but if possible stick with the older 3.2 tags unless necessary. I always try the simplest tool first that will do the job). There was a reply about the limitations in TXT with heading hierarchies. HTML has several levels of header tags that are meant to be used for this purpose. Other tags can be used creatively to achieve other ends. A list of the 3.2 tags are at http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/wilbur/list.html (don't forget to validate, though). - The huge benefit of HTML (besides the text formatting that you mentioned) is the ability to insert images. Some books I would never have considered working on if could not have done an HTML. - Don't forget to set the background color if you want a specific color (in the BODY tag, or style sheet). I have seen hundreds of pages where the writer assumes that white is always the default background color for everyone (not true) intending the graphics to blend into the background. -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Hutchinson <joshua(a)hutchinson.net> Sent: Oct 15, 2004 7:08 AM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it... Steve makes a good answer in another post, but I wanted to add my personal holy grail that hopefully a TEI-Lite master format will help bring about... A single master document. Right now, I create a ASCII version and then a HTML version. If I make the ASCII version first, it almost never fails that I find at least one more mistake when I then do the HTML version. I fix it there, but I have to remember it and go back to the ASCII version and make the fix there. And god forbid the fix requires another rewrap. A master document format that is auto-converted to the others (at an acceptable level) would be wonderful and, imo, worth a little extra up front effort to prepare it. If someone could get a working bit of code in place, I'd be happy to start testing it like crazy and work on old texts to get it converted to that format. Josh John Hagerson wrote: >Please picture this scenario: > >I'm a volunteer who has scanned a public-domain book and wants to make it >available through the PG distribution mechanism (free of charge, available >until the Internet collapses under the weight of spam and next-generation >pornography, yadda, yadda, yadda). > >Today, if I can convert this book to plain text (according to some stated >formatting conventions), I may submit the book. If I'm ambitious, I can >create an HTML version, which presents the same information, but allows >"real" formatting rather than _italic_ and *bold*. > >In the background, however, there is this Whole New World(tm) of semantic >tagging, which presumably will allow the book to make snacks and provide >entertainment during the reading process. But, for me, as a volunteer, who >spends a considerable amount of time working on books, but enjoys actually >finishing one and seeing it posted, I can't get my arms around the benefits. > >Except for recognizing the acronyms, I am agnostic to XML/ZML/TEI/ABC/EIEIO. > >Could someone please explain the benefit of semantic tagging and why it >won't horribly lengthen the amount of time required to produce an eBook? > >Thank you. > > > >_______________________________________________ >gutvol-d mailing list >gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org >http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d > > > _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d --------------------------- Dennis McCarthy nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com

3 2

re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it...
by D. Starner 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

> and indeed, it's not that difficult to write a converter > that will change the underscore _form_of_italics_ > into the other [i]form of italics[/i] that uses brackets. > it's rather easy to see they are functionally equivalent. Which is odd, because they aren't. How do you convert _th_operat_er_ to brackets? Is it [i]th[/i] operate [i]er[/i], or [i]th[/i]operate[i]er[/i] (which would be unsurprising in some of the Middle English editions I've been scanning)? Once again, you're going to blow this off as irrelevant, aren't you. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0

Sniffing Books
by Dennis McCarthy 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

1) Correction, read "or an e-book" for "on an e-book." 2) I am pretty sure I heard this on public radio while driving home two or more years ago. The specific topic was second thoughts on an initiative by some libraries to put books on microfilm, then purge the originals from their collection (as a space saving project). Could not tell you the name of the speaker, but he had been an advocate of purging hard copies, and the vinegar incident helped him rethink it. 3) The vinegar idea sounds strange enough that the researcher may have thought it up after sniffing enough mold spores, and actually ended up believing it. -----Original Message----- From: Greg Newby <gbnewby(a)pglaf.org> Sent: Oct 15, 2004 2:51 PM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it... On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 11:05:22AM -0700, Joel A. Erickson wrote: > From: "Dennis McCarthy": > >I once heard a researcher talk about a man he found smelling manuscripts > >in a library. A conversation started where the man explained he was > >trying to trace diseases in European towns. A vinegar spray was > >apparently used at one time as an attempted disinfectant when papers where > >transfered between infected and uninfected areas. You shall never get a > >reproduced smell from microfilm, a page scan, on an e-book. > > > Is that "on an e-book" intended to be "or an e-book." If so, I'm not so > sure about never being able to reproduce the smell. Not that I'm > particularly keen on smelling books, but I've heard of working prototypes > of scent devices activated digitally. I do not know if there is an online source for this story, but have seen a printed copy and believe it is legimate. The story is that old books can develop mold or fungus. Sometimes this can be very light, and it might be between the pages (not just on the cover). Any preservation librarian can verify this fact. The interesting part is that the molds or fungi (or spores) have demonstrated psychoactive properties. In short, sniffing old books can get you high and/or cause hallucination. -- Greg _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d --------------------------- Dennis McCarthy nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com

3 2

Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it...
by Joshua Hutchinson 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

> > The interesting part is that the molds or fungi (or spores) > have demonstrated psychoactive properties. In short, > sniffing old books can get you high and/or cause hallucination. > -- Greg > This explains an awful lot about some of my old English professors ...

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it...
by Dennis McCarthy 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

I once had to ask the whitewasher to put the background color code back in (it is only a few character's long) and he did it. He had put in a new automated header code that overwrote my BODY tag. I see the wisdom in avoiding the FONT tag as much as possible, particularly the font face (i.e. Arial, ComicSans, etc.) seems something bound to get lost or unrecognized in future browser/OS versions. If the font face is important enough (0.01% of the time?) one could do a PDF or page scans. Even when I am being a stickler about preserving the text format as much as possible, I only aim for it to be 99% useful for 99% of readers, rather than trying to make a perfect reprint. Of course there is no perfect reproduction. . . I once heard a researcher talk about a man he found smelling manuscripts in a library. A conversation started where the man explained he was trying to trace diseases in European towns. A vinegar spray was apparently used at one time as an attempted disinfectant when papers where transfered between infected and uninfected areas. You shall never get a reproduced smell from microfilm, a page scan, on an e-book. -----Original Message----- From: Norm Wolcott <nwolcott2(a)kreative.net> Sent: Oct 15, 2004 10:53 AM To: Dennis McCarthy <nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com>, Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it... But PG has adopted standards which limit the range of tags and CSS you can use, so you may not be able to specify changes in background color or font, such as Alice in Wonderland. Some contributors put their HTML elsewhere, perhaps for this reason. Bad news. nwolcott2(a)post.harvard.edu Friar Wolcott, Gutenberg Abbey, Sherwood Forrest ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis McCarthy" <nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it... > > I started e-books in the old days when PG was only plain text. Then after quite a long lapse I had returned to discover that I could release a book in HTML if I wished, supplying a standard TXT along with it. > > I am happy with this arrangement, sometimes doing both HTML and TXT, and sometimes just TXT depending on how highly formatted the original was. I tend to work the opposite way, though, doing the HTML first (using a text editor incidentally), then stripping the code for the TXT. It is probably not the most efficient way, but hobbies are not supposed to be efficient. > > I am ignorant too about the acronyms you mentioned. I am also very pragmatic, and hope to remain totally ignorant of these until someone proves to me--with a history of examples--that it is worth it. TXT and HTML have such histories, so I shall stick with these for now. > > Regarding HTML, some thoughts. . . > > - Use the full range of tags when appropriate (but if possible stick with the older 3.2 tags unless necessary. I always try the simplest tool first that will do the job). There was a reply about the limitations in TXT with heading hierarchies. HTML has several levels of header tags that are meant to be used for this purpose. Other tags can be used creatively to achieve other ends. A list of the 3.2 tags are at http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/wilbur/list.html (don't forget to validate, though). > > - The huge benefit of HTML (besides the text formatting that you mentioned) is the ability to insert images. Some books I would never have considered working on if could not have done an HTML. > > - Don't forget to set the background color if you want a specific color (in the BODY tag, or style sheet). I have seen hundreds of pages where the writer assumes that white is always the default background color for everyone (not true) intending the graphics to blend into the background. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Hutchinson <joshua(a)hutchinson.net> > Sent: Oct 15, 2004 7:08 AM > To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> > Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it... > > Steve makes a good answer in another post, but I wanted to add my > personal holy grail that hopefully a TEI-Lite master format will help > bring about... > > A single master document. > > Right now, I create a ASCII version and then a HTML version. If I make > the ASCII version first, it almost never fails that I find at least one > more mistake when I then do the HTML version. I fix it there, but I > have to remember it and go back to the ASCII version and make the fix > there. And god forbid the fix requires another rewrap. > > A master document format that is auto-converted to the others (at an > acceptable level) would be wonderful and, imo, worth a little extra up > front effort to prepare it. > > If someone could get a working bit of code in place, I'd be happy to > start testing it like crazy and work on old texts to get it converted to > that format. > > Josh > > John Hagerson wrote: > > >Please picture this scenario: > > > >I'm a volunteer who has scanned a public-domain book and wants to make it > >available through the PG distribution mechanism (free of charge, available > >until the Internet collapses under the weight of spam and next-generation > >pornography, yadda, yadda, yadda). > > > >Today, if I can convert this book to plain text (according to some stated > >formatting conventions), I may submit the book. If I'm ambitious, I can > >create an HTML version, which presents the same information, but allows > >"real" formatting rather than _italic_ and *bold*. > > > >In the background, however, there is this Whole New World(tm) of semantic > >tagging, which presumably will allow the book to make snacks and provide > >entertainment during the reading process. But, for me, as a volunteer, who > >spends a considerable amount of time working on books, but enjoys actually > >finishing one and seeing it posted, I can't get my arms around the benefits. > > > >Except for recognizing the acronyms, I am agnostic to XML/ZML/TEI/ABC/EIEIO. > > > >Could someone please explain the benefit of semantic tagging and why it > >won't horribly lengthen the amount of time required to produce an eBook? > > > >Thank you. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >gutvol-d mailing list > >gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > >http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d > > > --------------------------- > Dennis McCarthy > nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d > > --------------------------- Dennis McCarthy nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com

3 2

re: Re: [gutvol-d] I'm sorry but I don't get it...
by Joshua Hutchinson 15 Oct '04

15 Oct '04

> i've already got a "bit of code in place" using z.m.l. -- > a.k.a. zen markup language, a.k.a. zero markup language > -- but i doubt you're interested in testing it _at_all_, > let alone "like crazy", which is quite alright with me, > thank you very much, as i don't need _your_ help... > > nonetheless, the beta-test is open to all, by e-mailing: > zml_talk-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com > If you *ever* actually release any code that people can test, I *will* test it "like crazy." And if, all indications to contrary, you've actually produced something useful, I'll be the first person to eat crow on the public boards. Remember, though, it has to be able to convert from a "master" format to other formats easily and automatically... otherwise, you're just reinventing HTML in your own image. Josh

1 0