December 2010 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 31 Dec '10

31 Dec '10

jim said: > Certainly creating an automated tool > to do a good job on 100% of all books > IS an "impossible" task. i'm so sick and tired of the righteous repetition of this... haven't any of you heard of "successive approximation"? i suggest we might introduce some new thinking in 2011. -bowerbird

1 0

restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 31 Dec '10

31 Dec '10

i don't get over to the d.p. forums very often these days, so i didn't realize they started rolling out their notice on the shift to restructured-text last saturday, december 11th. i also didn't know this initiative was so far along, in that two r.s.t. e-books are already mounted (december 16th): > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34654 > http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34605 here's my r.s.t. summary: the good, the bad, and the ugly. *** _restructured-text_at_project_gutenberg_ _the_good_ project gutenberg is officially using a light-markup format! _the_bad_ the implementation uptake at d.p. will likely be _very_slow_... _the_ugly_ this change proves that it is now marcello making p.g. policy. *** i'll elaborate on this summary in the coming days... in the meantime... as you can imagine, over the many years, i have been an advocate of light-markup all over cyberspace, so now i can go out and tell the world that project gutenberg has finally endorsed my position and is using light-markup! of course, this leaves considerable egg on the faces of people like walter, who -- just last december 26th -- posted that i was a "hopeless fool" and that my proposals for light-markup were "fundamentally impossible". looks like you were wrong, walter. way wrong. way way wrong. even marcello has given it all up. -bowerbird

9 14

Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 30 Dec '10

30 Dec '10

keith said: > In a Nut shell. the task is impossible! well, jim never said why he felt the current examples fall short of what he'd like to see as optimal output... but the task surely isn't "impossible"... i don't particularly like the look of the current examples, but in terms of their structural aspects, they're just fine. the problem is, d.p. recruited its current postprocessors with a lure of "you can make the book look how you like", instead of concentrating on a library that's interoperable. consequently, the books that came out of d.p. are like snowflakes, each of them exhibiting different patterns, with far too much emphasis on cloning the original look. unlike marcello, who is insensitive to the book esthetics, the postprocessors are too-finely attuned to the unique aspects of a book. it'll be hard to find common ground. neither side seems all that interested in common sense. one side controls the files; the other side controls labor. and i cannot see either side giving up their crown jewels. but there's nothing inherently difficult in the task itself, and certainly nothing that would make it "impossible"... the preponderance of pages in the preponderance of books are pages full of paragraphs of justified text, where indents are the most fancy formatting you see. hardly "impossible". -bowerbird

1 0

just so we're clear
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 30 Dec '10

30 Dec '10

let me fill you in on my up-and-coming timetable, ok? *** sometime after the first of the year, i will be releasing a software tool to the public. i have decided it is time. the tool is aimed at writers who wanna self-publish... it will help them convert the book they have written -- and formatted as a z.m.l. file -- into a variety of output formats, including .pdf and .html to start off. .epub and .mobi/kindle are the next likely targets... the tool lets them control various conversion aspects, such as font, fontsize, leading, margins, and so on... *** but of course readers can use this converter-tool too. providing that they possess the digital text for a book, they'll be able to convert that book to various outputs. this means they'll be able to _customize_ the output to their own personal preferences, as to the font, fontsize, colors, margins, leading, justification, pagesize, etc. they'll be able to do this with project gutenberg e-texts. so it doesn't really matter what kind of output that p.g. offers, because your readers will be able to use my tool to customize their own output to their own preferences. but hey, knock yourselves out, ok? > http://jaguarps.com -bowerbird p.s. i also wrote up a piece a while back discussing how project gutenberg should go about selling on amazon... but instead of sharing it here, now, and having greg tell all of us sometime down the line how it was all his idea, i'm gonna post it somewhere, and point to it later, when i can say "i would have told you so, but you never asked, but these are all of the things i think you did incorrectly." we'll see how much of it greg can come up with when he doesn't get the benefit of some hints in advance from me. (not that greg, or any of the people over at d.p., have been smart enough to use my ideas as i've presented them; they always wanted to introduce their own ripples, which were inevitably something that would cause the thing to misfire. but let's see how well they can do without _any_ scaffolding.)

1 0

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 28 Dec '10

28 Dec '10

john redmond said: > Ever the pugilist, BB! i don't understand why some people believe that a desire to seek best practices implies some kind of "fighter" mentality. when i say "x gives better results than y," it's not a _fight_... it's a _discussion_, one in which i've invited you to take part, by preparing the stage through the act of taking a position... so if you believe that "y gives better results than x", say so! then we can summon up the arguments for both positions, discuss them so we understand them fully, and then go on to weigh them carefully, so we arrive at the right conclusion. sounds fairly civilized to me, if i do say so myself... > The view that I am trying to express is about > offering more attractive versions of text, > _regardless_ of how they are generated. well, i'm not sure anyone here really cares much about that. i certainly haven't detected much of it in the past, and even now, i don't think that's really what is _upsetting_ to people. they're upset because someone profits off their volunteerism. but even if i'm wrong, and people really do want to offer up "more attractive versions" of the e-books, the next question -- the _very_ next question -- becomes "how do we do that?" i've looked at your system. i looked at it last december, and i looked again just now. i admire much of what you've done. it's just that i think there are other systems, including mine, which can give more benefits to end-users at less cost to p.g. and i believe that conclusion will be fairly obvious to everyone. so, you know, no fighting necessary... :+) -bowerbird

10 16

Re: restructured-text -- the good, the bad, and the ugly
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 19 Dec '10

19 Dec '10

greg said: > Absolute rubbish. say whatever you want, greg. the record is crystal-clear. i've been suggesting light-markup for 7 years here. _7_. the idea went nowhere, officially. and i was subjected to constant attack by the wolf-pack, until i showed emphatically that i would not be a victim, and demonstrated conclusively that my system worked. and still my idea went nowhere, officially. marcello decided to support r.s.t., and 6 months later, it's now p.g. policy. that pretty much speaks for itself. and you want to pass this off as some "coincidence"? what, do you think we are all _blind_, or something? you've been manipulated, and you don't even realize it. as for d.p. being the brains behind this, that's a _laugh_. roger is just about the only one with any authority there who doesn't have a head full of straw for his brains... and yes, roger has contributed, but it's only because he came to realize that marcello is the linchpin with power, and unless roger bowed down and kissed marcello's ring, roger wasn't going anywhere, no matter how good his stuff. *** but hey, don't get the impression that i am complaining! i am _loving_ this situation. you are now "on the team" with the guy who has had to eat the opinion he had been advising as your desired course of action for a long 7 years. and most of the ordinary players on that team are people who your advisor has pissed off along the way, and they are volunteers, so they can walk away scott free any time. meanwhile, the real world is still demanding real results... so this is gonna be fun to watch... :+) -bowerbird

1 0

Re: bowerbird was correct all along
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 19 Dec '10

19 Dec '10

keith said: > At least we can say they have learned their lesson. i wish i could say that. but i don't think they've learned anything. they only decided to put some real clothes on their t.e.i. emperor because the real world had started to demand some real results... so marcello had no choice but to change his mind. in that mind, though, he is still king, and all the other people are just subjects. -bowerbird

1 0

Re: bowerbird was correct all along
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 19 Dec '10

19 Dec '10

keith said: > You first proposed using zml! well, i suggested that z.m.l. was the best format to use, because it was molded from the existing pg-text format. and it would still be the best one to use, for that reason. many p.g. text-files are _already_ z.m.l. files in disguise. but i often said that other light-markup systems would be almost as good. the one i would usually recommend was markdown, because it's now supported quite widely. but i also suggested ascii-doc, and restructured-text... ascii-doc is used lots of places, and restructured-text has been the format that python uses for documentation. and there is also wiki-formatting, like wikipedia uses, which means that lots of people are familiar with that. what you will see if you look at these systems closely is that many of them are not as "light" as they could be... they essentially require you to learn a _new_ markup... the next thing you will notice is that they are not geared specifically to the special and unique needs of e-books... which means you have to formulate some workarounds... it was with those two observations in mind, therefore, that i developed the approach that i used with z.m.l., which is yet another reason why it'd be the best choice. but, you know, p.g. will do what marcello wants it to, as he's in the power position where he can block stuff. and since marcello wants to use r.s.t., p.g. will use r.s.t. > I proposed using LaTeX or similar syntax! latex is most definitely _not_ light-markup. sorry, keith. -bowerbird

2 1

bowerbird was correct all along
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 18 Dec '10

18 Dec '10

greg said: > RST is the markup, and > it seems to be good for lots of content > (not a panacea). so project gutenberg has finally adopted a light-markup system... r.s.t. is not the best choice, but at least you're in the right ballpark. so we can officially call this date "bowerbird was correct all along". took you guys long enough to realize; it's been, what, 7 years now. anyway, you knew it was coming: _i_told_you_so._ -bowerbird

2 1

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 18 Dec '10

18 Dec '10

keith said: > I definitely was not! all right, then, good. that means the shoe doesn't fit, which means you don't have to wear it. > Well, you responded to my message and quoted me, > which makes me a recipient. there were many recipients who weren't targets, and the targets, by and large, have no doubt who they are. > Just pointing out, you were doing me wrong, way wrong. then you should point out that the shoe doesn't fit, which means that you are not going to wear it... so i am glad you have done that. -bowerbird

1 0