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

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

18 Dec '10

keith- were you part of the pack who attempted to ban me back then? i honestly cannot remember, but i don't think so. still, there are plenty of people who are still here who _were_ a part of that pack, and who would _still_ ban me if they could, and they know full well who they are, and i know full well too, and they are the people at whom that message was targeted... if the shoe fits, wear it. if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. it's really that simple. -bowerbird

2 1

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

18 Dec '10

keith said: > Why should I do that ? That is ban you from the list that was a wink at the sordid history of this listserve. some time back, the pack-who-always-attacked-me became such a victim of its own group-think that it actually convinced itself that _i_ was the only reason that t.e.i. wouldn't work, like my mere presence had some kind of magical force that rendered t.e.i. moot. they tried to ban me here, but michael wouldn't have it. so they decided that if they set up a listserve elsewhere, and banned me from it in advance, they would succeed bringing about the great solution that i was subverting, and create the t.e.i. workflow project gutenberg needed. in other words, they were saying pretty much exactly what you proposed, keith. this was about 6 years ago. so they actually created that listserve. it went nowhere. this listserve has been repeating its own history forever. -bowerbird

2 1

Re: Nay Sayers
by John Redmond 18 Dec '10

18 Dec '10

Greg said: "As Marcello mentioned in another post, RST is the markup, and it seems to be good for lots of content (not a panacea). " For what it's worth, I can happily live with that. More importantly, PG has a context for moving forward. I'm not at all sure that I can be useful in the move, but I'm here if needed. Go well, PG!

1 0

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 17 Dec '10

17 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

1 0

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

walter said: > I always saw you as a proponent of TEI as > a master format to generate all other formats from > (an idea I still think is probably a good idea), > what has changed? marcello changed his mind for one big and obvious reason -- he needed some _real_ results, and t.e.i. wasn't working. t.e.i. is far too difficult and far too costly, so it can only be used in the situations where you have lots of captive labor, examples being prisons, or corporations, or government... but if you have to stand up to the requirements of having a cost-efficient workflow, especially one with _volunteers_, you will need something that minimizes the costs involved. this has always been true. people like marcello and walter ignored it for a long time. but you can't ignore it forever. -bowerbird

1 0

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

keith- what's your point? i mean, i can tell you're being dismissive. but i'm quite sure you don't know what you're looking at. so why don't you spell things out, so i can sort you out? -bowerbird

4 3

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

keith said: > The question is if PG should develop > a simple markup based on for example XHMTL > to accommodate the growing interest > in more appealing texts and formats. > > The bigger question is who is willing to > spear-head the project and > help retool the PG tool chain and > make the move as easy as possible. > > At least there does seem to be an interest. hey! i know _exactly_ what you could do! you could set up a separate listserve, one to which i was specifically uninvited -- banned in advance! -- so that y'all could work in an uninterrupted fashion to pull off this task. yeah! _that_ would work! go for it! -bowerbird

3 2

a juicy little discussion
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

i'm informed there is a juicy little discussion going on in my spam folder, with people like david starner and marcello going at each other. have fun, kids; i no longer have any time for you. like i said, anyone who wants to accomplish stuff is gonna have to go through marcello, and i don't envy anyone the sheer pleasure of _that_ journey... indeed, the mere thought of the beautiful synergy of marcello working in concert with people from d.p. to create p.g. e-books to go on sale at amazon has had me giggling to myself ever since the idea arose. i'm sure that you're gonna become a _juggernaut_... i can honestly say that y'all truly deserve each other. -bowerbird

1 0

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

john redmond said: > The markup _was_ light, because the style of > document did not require anything more. right. that's why it was not a good example text. 1.1 megabytes of mostly just plain paragraphs... that doesn't do anybody much good, not really... this is why a good developer makes a test-suite. i've had mine up for well over 5 years already... > http://www.z-m-l.com/go/test-suite.zml 36k, and it includes almost everything one can expect to encounter in the p.g. library e-books. > Heavy markup? What if we have > a more technical document > that demands lists and tables? what if we do? lists and tables are not hard... neither are footnotes/endnotes, providing that you've prepared the master-text-file correctly. (and even if you haven't, it's not _that_ hard.) > The markup _has_ to be heavier. no, it doesn't. > Surely we can agree on that! no, we can't. that's the crux of disagreement! a light-markup perspective keeps the markup nice and simple, and makes the _programming_ that interprets that markup more sophisticated. this is the major failing of the file-format lovers, including the "true believers" in x.m.l. and t.e.i. they want to put all the complexity in the format. and then they just expect that the programmers will make sense of their obtuse complications... but i come at things from the opposite direction, where the programmer provides the solution and devises a file-format that facilitates that solution. -bowerbird

2 1

Re: Nay Sayers
by John Redmond 17 Dec '10

17 Dec '10

BB said: "well, don't get too delighted. because a "true believer" in xml/tei will never see eye-to-eye with me long-term. :+) but yes, i saw some promise in your message last year, where you argued in favor of the use of light-markup... the thing is, you never answered my question about what the need is for a "heavy" format, if it is merely being generated from the "light" version to start with." We can continue to find something to agree about: Yes, your restyling of my HTML _does_ look better than mine, but primarily because you didn't use my off-the-shelf all-purpose ugly-dreadful CSS. Your (centering) treatment of the TOC is a style that I had tried and rejected (just because it didn't appeal), but these are small issues. Now the structure of the document comes from _my light markup_, with the very big qualification that, to generate the endnotes, I had to do a good deal of cutting and patching of the original text. In that respect, this was (or is) not a very typical case. So, where are we? We have used light markup, plus the patching, to structure the document. The markup _was_ light, because the style of document did not require anything more. Heavy markup? What if we have a more technical document that demands lists and tables? The markup _has_ to be heavier. Surely we can agree on that! So consider my "true belief" to be that a markup system, to be useful for a range of documents, _has_ to have some heavy options in the back cupboard. John Redmond

1 0