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

www.gutenberg.org
by Marcello Perathoner 25 Dec '05

25 Dec '05

As of my request ibiblio has changed our apache virtual host ServerName from gutenberg.net to www.gutenberg.org. What? Nothing changes in web site operation except one little particular (if you hit a non-existing url you get redirected to www.gutenberg.org instead of gutenberg.net) Why? The .org top-level domain is meant for non-profit organizations while the .net domain is meant for network infrastructure such as providers, backbones etc. We own both gutenberg.net and gutenberg.org, but using the latter one is just more standard-compliant. Although both urls www.gutenberg.net and www.gutenberg.org give exactly the same results, you should start using www.gutenberg.org in all publications, papers etc. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster(a)gutenberg.org

3 2

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Re: barriers to XML posting
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 03 Jan '05

03 Jan '05

joshua said: > Honestly, I see an easy compromise here. oh-oh, something smells bad here... :+) > As long as a conformant TEXT file > and a conformant HTML file > show up with the XML file, > I say post all three. well then i'm sure glad you don't _have_ a say... > Granted, right now we don't have a method > for the WW'ers to verify the XML file is valid all these minor details, eh? > so if you want to put a disclaimer to that effect in the file ... fine. a disclaimer? that's your "compromise". yeah, right. for those on the outside, who wonder why this fuss is being made whether an .xml file can be "posted", it's because the x.m.l. people want the imprimatur of being "official". why is that so important? because that's how the x.m.l. ponzi game is being played these days. people are adopting x.m.l. not because they think it's the best route, but rather because they've been "convinced" that it is "inevitable". even though -- in too many situations -- it just plain doesn't work, this "inevitability" makes people shrug and say, "ok, give me some." after all, you don't want to miss out on the ground floor, do you? they will tell you time and time again how there are "so many tools" for dealing with x.m.l., how x.m.l. is gonna be able to do conversions for whatever format anyone wants, but they can't even demonstrate a simple ability to convert out a text file and an .html version now. and when you call them on that, they whine about how unreasonable you are being, and how unfair it is to expect "150% perfection". bull. it is _far_ more sensible -- especially in, as jim delicately put it, a "production environment rather than an experimental one" -- to make the process _work_ before you put it in play, the x.m.l. people don't want to be bothered with that "technicality" before the fact. that's something that someone will figure out "later". yeah, right. if x.m.l. gets the stamp of approval here, what's the motivation for x.m.l. experts to come make it work? after all, there's no money in it for them here. they're off being high-paid consultants, telling the next mark, "look, even project gutenberg is using x.m.l. now too." as marcello puts it: > At this point we need to set a signal that the TEI era has started. he's not interested in actually making t.e.i. _work_ in reality -- he tried, and got a grand total of two simple e-texts done -- he just wants to "set a signal" that the "era has started" here... -bowerbird

7 9

On quote-like marks...
by Jon Noring 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Regarding the recent discussion about ASCII and the single/double quote marks (and what to use), I have my two cents to add (and those here who are much more expert at character sets and Unicode than I am will undoubtely be able to add to this.) The situation regarding single and double quote-like marks is even more complicated than what it has been presented so far. It has an impact on the future expanded use of PG texts as envisioned by Michael Hart and others, such as text-to-speech and language conversion. So I believe it needs to be dealt with in a more standardized-fashion (that is, don't simply use the straight keyboard ' and " for everything under the sun.) Quote-like marks are used for multiple purposes in texts -- especially single quote-like marks. And then there are the "curly" types of marks used in typographical presentation. Here's a (probably) partial list of their multiple uses: 1) For marking up quotations (other conventions are also used) 2) Word contractions (e.g., "we're" for "we are") 3) Possessives ("the Emperor's crown") 4) Non-breaking character modifiers (see below) 5) Minutes and second of time and arc. (50d3'25") 6) Feet and inches unit indicator (She is 5'7" tall) 7) Other mathematical symbol and unit measurement uses. Item (4) is particularly interesting since I'm working on cleaning up Burton's "1001 Arabian Nights Tales", and in it there are many Arabic names where, when Burton converted to Latin script, single quote-like marks were inserted to indicate a type of non-breaking character modifier for pronounciation purposes. For example: Ja'afar. This semantically differs from the apostrophes used for contractions/ possessives -- or at least semantically different enough (imho) that warrants differentiation in character encoding/entities. In the XML markup of the Arabian Nights, I've chosen to use the following Unicode character conventions to keep everything straight. It's not what I necessarily propose PG/DP do, but it indicates one possible approach. Since at present I do not enclose quotations in <q> (for example), I keep in the quotation marks (double and single) to identify quotations. In the Arabian Nights I find some odd quotation passages, a couple of which start in the middle of one paragraph and end in the middle of another paragraph later within a story, so adding <q>...</q> would result in non-well-formed XML (I could use the "mile marker" approach as defined in TEI, but for the Arabian Nights have chosen not to.) 1) For quotations using double quote marks, I use the Unicode left-double quote mark for the beginning, and the right-double quote mark for the ending: “ and ”, respectively. (The "curly" quotes -- for those who don't like curly quotes for reading, it is trivial to convert them to straight keyboard quote marks, but going the other way is more difficult to do.) 2) For quotations using single quote marks, I use the Unicode left-single quote mark for the beginning, and the right-single quote mark for the ending: ‘ and ’, respectively. 3) For the non-breaking character modifier as described above, e.g. for "Ja'afar", I use the Unicode character specific for this purpose: ʼ 4) For word contractions and possessives I use the ordinary lower- ASCII single straight quote mark: ' (For later presentational purposes this character can always be converted to the right-single "curly" quote mark.) For use of ' and " for minutes and seconds of arc, and feet/inches, there are special Unicode code points for these (I don't see this usage in the Arabian Nights footnotes, but maybe I'll encounter it somewhere, not having finished the 5000+ footnotes.) If one is working with plain text files (not XML), the above Unicode characters can be encoded at the bit-level using UTF-8 or UTF-16 encoding. Jon Noring

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] 7-bit ASCII, how many characters?
by D. Starner 29 Nov '04

29 Nov '04

"Michael Hart" writes: > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Andrew Sly wrote: > > A while ago, I had the address of a web page which explained > > in detail why ASCII-96 should not be used as an opening single > > quote, but I can't find it now. It's <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/quotes.html>; basically, the grave and the Latin-1/Unicode acute accent (U+00B4) should be balanced and are in most modern fonts, > In addition, if this really had been intended to be a French > accent grave, why is the "_" between it and the " ^ " which > could be the French accent cironflex. . .not to mention the > lack of an accent aigue, etc. . . . There's no particular reason for the sorting, but the ' originally leaned right, which not only made `quotes' look right, but make it possible to be used as an acute accent, both designed to be backspaced over the character. If you used the " as diaresis and , as cedilla, you have German and all the Romantic languages handled. The use of backspace in this manner disappeared after ASCII was standardized, making the ASCII collection a little unusual. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0

7-bit ASCII, how many characters?
by Dennis McCarthy 28 Nov '04

28 Nov '04

A technical question: Exactly what characters make up 7-bit ascii? I presume it is 128 (2 to the 7th power). So logically any character I can generate by typing Alt+0000 thro' Alt+0127 (in MS Windows) is kosher in a 7-bit ASCII text. Specifically I want to know if I can us "|" (the character made by hitting Shift+backslash on a standard US keyboard, or Alt+0124). Generally, are the following (Alt+0000 thro' Alt+0127) always okay? ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ --------------------------- Dennis McCarthy nihil_obstat(a)mindspring.com

7 6

"We're still keeping up with Moore's Law!"
by Michael Dyck 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

In today's gweekly Pt 1, Michael Hart wrote: > > We're still keeping up with Moore's Law! > Moore's Law 18 month percentage = 115% > Moore's Law 12 month percentage = 67% I don't understand how these percentages were calculated. 18 months ago (May 24, 2003), the "TOTAL COUNT" (incl PG Australia) was about 8044 (interpolating between 8021 on May 21 and 8075 on May 28), so doubling every 18 months would land us at 2 * 8044 = 16088 today. Today's actual count is 14,484, or 90% of the predicted amount. 12 months ago (Nov 24, 2003), the total count was about 10,517 (interpolating between 10,396 on Nov 19 and 10,565 on Nov 26). Doubling every 18 months means multiplying by 2^(12/18) = 1.5874 every 12 months, which would predict a count of 16695 today. Our actual count of 14,484 is 87% of that. So where do 115% and 67% come from? -Michael

2 1

Linking to page images
by Steve Thomas 25 Nov '04

25 Nov '04

Regarding the question of whether and how we should provide links to page scans, here's one idea which may have potential: Etext number 10072, "English Housewifery Exemplified", by Elizabeth Moxon, was produced from scans from Biblioteca de la Universitat de Barcelona (it says so at the top of the text). It happens that Biblioteca de la Universitat de Barcelona makes their scans available on the net, for free (apparently -- my Spanish is non-existent; might even be Catalan?) So I've added a note for this text ni the catalog, which reads: " Produced from page images available from Biblioteca de la Universitat de Barcelona, at http://www.bib.ub.es/grewe/showbook.pl?gw58 " thus providing a link to the actual page scans for anyone interested. Is this a model to be followed? Of course, this raises the question of who is to add this information to the catalogue -- the link was not provided in the etext, I had to go look for it. Also, the link is not clickable. Ideally, you'd want the link to be active, but there's no place for this in the present catalog design. Steve -- Stephen Thomas, Senior Systems Analyst, University of Adelaide Library UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE SA 5005 AUSTRALIA Phone: +61 8 830 35190 Fax: +61 8 830 34369 Email: stephen.thomas(a)adelaide.edu.au URL: http://staff.library.adelaide.edu.au/~sthomas/ CRICOS Provider Number 00123M ----------------------------------------------------------- This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information that may be confidential and/or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this email. Use, disclosure or reproduction of this email by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. No representation is made that this email or any attachments are free of viruses. Virus scanning is recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] documenting etexts
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

In a message dated 11/22/2004 2:03:48 PM Mountain Standard Time, joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: Something just occured to me here ... Did you realize that Carlos (while very articulate in English) is not a native english speaker? Yes, I know that. Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] documenting etexts
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

In a message dated 11/22/2004 12:06:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: Rather, he explained the fallacies he saw in your argument. I have no objections to having fallacies pointed out; however, I had made no assumptions. I had made a SUGGESTION and ASKED FOR COMMENT. I had thought about the situation for some time before I was ready to put forth the suggestion. Therefore, condescendingly telling me I had made incorrect assumptions was maddening. I shall now explain why I almost never make assumptions. When I first became a crime scene technician, my boss would never allow me to say a substance was blood. I had to say "a red fluid which appeared to be blood." Even if somebody is lying on the floor with a shotgun blast through his chest, he is lying in a pool of "a red fluid which appears to be blood." I couldn't understand why I had to do this, until the day that my boss and I were trailing an injured murderer down an alley by the places he had stopped to bleed. The last blood spatter was in the middle of a blind alley with no doors opening onto it and a wall too high for an injured person to climb. This made no sense at all to us. There was nowhere for him to go from there. Nevertheless, a sample was taken from each splotch. When the lab report came back, we learned that the last spatter was brake fluid. We had lost him on the street, at the end of the alley, where he apparently got into a car. I don't KNOW that he got into a car. He might have gotten into a truck or onto a motorcycle or bicycle. He might have gotten into a flying saucer. It APPEARED that he had gotten into a car. I cannot ASSUME what he did. I wasn't there. I didn't see it. Therefore I rarely make assumptions. I asked whether my suggestion would work. I have no problem at all with being told that it would not work. It was the condescending attitude, in this case and in the "old Tom Swift books," post, that was like a red flag to a bull. And you have apparently missed some posts, because this is the third time in less than a month that Carlo has dropped on me like a ton of lead, assuming I have assumptions that I do not have. The first two times I laboriously explained what I was saying and why and how I had not meant what he assumed I meant. This time he got me on a day when I was ill and already crabby, and I bit back. I wished that I had not done so two seconds after I sent it, but I couldn't unsend it. As to ISPs and programs, you explained without acting as if I had an IQ of minus thirty. Thank you. Anne

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] documenting etexts
by Joshua Hutchinson 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

Something just occured to me here ... Did you realize that Carlos (while very articulate in English) is not a native english speaker? Maybe that explains why you are reading more into what Carlos is writing than I am getting from it. Also, it is not out of line to interpret "it should underline" as an assumption of sorts. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: Gutenberg9443(a)aol.com To: gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] documenting etexts Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:21:10 EST > > > In a message dated 11/22/2004 12:06:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, > joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: > > Rather, he explained the fallacies he saw in your argument. > > > I have no objections to having fallacies pointed out; > however, I had made no assumptions. I had > made a SUGGESTION and ASKED FOR COMMENT. > I had thought about the situation for some time before > I was ready to put forth the suggestion. Therefore, condescendingly telling > me I had made > incorrect assumptions was maddening. I shall now > explain why I almost never make assumptions. > > When I first became a crime scene technician, > my boss would never allow me to say a substance > was blood. I had to say "a red fluid which > appeared to be blood." Even if somebody is > lying on the floor with a shotgun blast through > his chest, he is lying in a pool of "a red > fluid which appears to be blood." I couldn't > understand why I had to do this, until the day > that my boss and I were trailing an injured murderer > down an alley by the places he had stopped > to bleed. The last blood spatter was in the > middle of a blind alley with no doors opening onto > it and a wall too high for an injured person to > climb. This made no sense at all to us. There > was nowhere for him to go from there. Nevertheless, > a sample was taken from each splotch. When > the lab report came back, we learned that the last > spatter was brake fluid. We had lost him on the street, > at the end of the alley, where he apparently got into a car. > > I don't KNOW that he got into a car. He might > have gotten into a truck or onto a motorcycle > or bicycle. He might have gotten into a flying > saucer. It APPEARED that he had gotten into > a car. I cannot ASSUME what he did. I wasn't > there. I didn't see it. > > Therefore I rarely make assumptions. > > I asked whether my suggestion would work. I > have no problem at all with being told that it would > not work. It was the condescending attitude, in this > case and in the "old Tom Swift books," post, that > was like a red flag to a bull. And you have apparently > missed some posts, because this is the > third time in less than a month that Carlo > has dropped on me like a ton of lead, > assuming I have assumptions that I do > not have. The first two times I > laboriously explained what I was saying > and why and how I had not meant what > he assumed I meant. This time he got > me on a day when I was ill and already > crabby, and I bit back. I wished that I > had not done so two seconds after I > sent it, but I couldn't unsend it. > > As to ISPs and programs, you explained > without acting as if I had an IQ of minus > thirty. Thank you. > > Anne > > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d >

1 0