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

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

17 Dec '10

john redmond said: > I am delighted to say that I _agree_ with BB! 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. the light version will be easier to create, easier to store, easier to edit, easier to maintain, and easier to update... and if we just use that, there's no need to even bother with the hassle of even generating the "heavy" format. you want to start with something clean, make it dirty by obscuring it with a lot of heavy markup, and then strip away the markup later to create something clean. isn't it bloody obvious that that's going to be inefficient? *** here's an example... i took your ivanhoe .html, and slapped my c.s.s. on it... i think my version looks a lot more "pretty" than yours: > http://z-m-l.com/misc/ivanhoe-restyle.htm but that's really beside the point. our underlying markup is pretty close... the c.s.s. is just the lipstick on the pig... but why should volunteers go through all the hassles of doing your heavy markup, when they can get results that are just as pretty (or even more pretty) with light markup? and your .pdf isn't even close to being as pretty as mine. and i'll be spitting out .mobi versions and .epub versions that will also be just as pretty as yours, probably more so. and i'll be doing it with files that are easier to create and easier to maintain, store, edit, and update, which means we don't need someone with "special knowledge" to do it. because those people end up being obstacles to progress, because they want to keep on holding on to their power... and don't even let me get started on the _functionality_ of our different versions. a pretty face is nice, and all, but i'm also interested in creating _powerful_ e-books, ones that stretch what we're able to do with the content. that's why i want my text free and clear, without being weighed down by the ponderous constraints of markup. *** so let me just ask you one more question here now... how many other people -- from here -- have looked at your work as closely as i have, as demonstrated by my restyling of your .html? my guess is that no one has... i would _love_ to find out that i was wrong about that. so if anyone has studied it, please do let us know, ok? it's easy to say, "oh yeah, that's great, go ahead and do it", and then pat you on the back and send you out the door... so tell us, john, how many people from here have done that? yet i take the time and show you the respect to _examine_ your work, closely, and yet you say _i_ was "patronizing"? maybe that word means something different in australia... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: Nay Sayers
by John Redmond 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

BB said: "unless you perform the conversions using the .txt version... but that means you need to beef up the strength of those... _and_ ensure that they have the consistency that's needed... and thus we end up at what i have been saying all along..." I am delighted to say that I _agree_ with BB! You _must_ have a canonical text version from which all other versions derive. Even better would be a marked-up text version and a stripping script to remove all markup. The option is then there to either remove the markup or use it to generate XML, etc. Easily said, but this would require an enormous house-cleaning effort. Marcello said: "Tcl is *not* our language of choice and integrating your tcl script into our python framework will probably take longer than rewriting the interesting bits from scratch. The only thing that really interest me is your experience with PDF toolkits. Which one are you using? What can you say pro and contra it?" Tcl or Python or...? This is just detail and any porting would be simple, as the whole system pretty much floats on regular expressions. PDF toolkits: The c2xsl script uses one or more CSS-style stylesheets to generate an XSLT stylesheet. This is then used to generate LaTeX text from the XML file. This is then processed with pdflatex. John Redmond

1 0

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

i said: > the _very_ next question -- becomes "how do we do that?" oh yeah, did i mention that marcello has to buy your proposal? i know what michael hart said -- and i have every reason to believe that he actually believes it is true -- but the reality of the situation is that marcello has the keys to the vault... *** linda said: > Gutenberg could do that by > adding to the list of file types volunteers can upload, > one for HTML formated especially for MOBI conversion > (for those who do not have converters); > and one for MOBI (for those that do). unlike robert, i do understand what you're saying here... but, just to be clear, you got your "those who do not" and "those who do" mixed up. but accidents happen. also, if volunteers submit an .html version that is friendly to .mobi conversion, then there's really no need to submit a .mobi version as well, since the conversion can be done automatically using the mobi-conversion-friendly .html... so there's just _one_ additional file being submitted... still, the obvious surface reaction to that is that it would create a whole bunch of extra work, both in the creation of the e-books and their maintenance (initially and long-term). even though that's an obvious reaction, it has much weight. but there is a more interesting and subtle twist underneath, one that points back to what i have been saying all along... (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) :+) specifically, there would be a huge benefit if the volunteers would upload .html files with a known underlying structure. so... what if volunteers _only_ uploaded the mobi-friendly .html? left their hand-crafted idiosyncratic .html on their hard-drive. could they do it? or would you lose your post-processors? they've been groomed to love their idiosyncratic versions... really, the ability to craft the output to your heart's desire is one of the big reasons post-processors do what they do. but the result -- .html files that are unique, like snowflakes -- means it is _impossible_ to do conversions library-wide... unless you perform the conversions using the .txt version... but that means you need to beef up the strength of those... _and_ ensure that they have the consistency that's needed... and thus we end up at what i have been saying all along... it doesn't matter how many times y'all do this little dance, you're gonna end up on my side of the argument in the end. even marcello, who resisted it -- with venom! -- for years, eventually had to relent, in order to get something to work. and if you woulda listened to me _originally,_ 7 years ago, you would have been way out ahead of the curve, so that when things like the kindle came along, you would've been ready and waiting to step into the place project gutenberg _deserves_... instead, you're still scrambling for a solution. -bowerbird

1 0

Nay Sayers
by John Redmond 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

"There are certainly a lot of "nay sayers" on this list, who will say nay to just about any new format proposal, but they don't really run everything, and if you send a new format to Greg Newby or myself, we'll give it a try at least 99% of the time." I have been following the discussion of the commercialisation of PG text, and these words have finally moved me to respond: I introduced myself to this group earlier this year, offering to become involved in styling some of the files. At the time, I had difficulty in deciding whether or not I was welcome and on one occasion I was certainly convinced that I was being patronised (yes, it was YOU, BB). I was not encouraged, but I was not deterred, either. And now suddenly the tenor of the discussions seems to have changed in light of the ereaders and the associated commercialism. I appreciate that PG wishes, quite rightly, to be accessible to all, including those who do not have the latest hardware or ereader, and that text versions are de rigeur. But there is suddenly a market for spiffed-up versions of the texts. And the money-spinners are happy to charge for them. Surely the time has come for PG to offer at least some of the books in sexier formats. EPub seems suddenly to be inevitable, though I don't like it much, and I would much prefer to distribute PDF documents. But they are inevitably bulkier! So where am I going with this. I have some Tcl scripts that will adapt existing PG text files to PDF and ePub/XHTML. And I am sure that there are many other script systems that will do the same sort of thing (yes, BB, I know about z.m.l). If something is not tried, the world will be using commercial files that would not exist if it were not for PG. And paying for them! As demonstration, look at my site (www.limpidsoft.com) where I have various versions of some 20 classics. Not mentioned on the main page, however, is a set of versions of Ivanhoe: www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe-a4.pdf www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe-a5.pdf www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe.html www.limpidsoft.com/new/ivanhoe.txt (the marked-up version) I mention this book because it demanded that I add dropcaps and notes (footnotes for PDF and endnotes for XHTML) to the scripts. The notes made processing this book significantly more complex than most of the other books. So there you are! The scripts are still in flux, but the results look encouraging. Anyone interested? John Redmond

4 3

Re: Nay Sayers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 16 Dec '10

16 Dec '10

john redmond said: > and on one occasion I was certainly convinced that > I was being patronised (yes, it was YOU, BB). are you talking to me? because i reviewed the posts, and i could see any place where what i said could be accurately described as being "patronising"... (for those people who want to review the thread yourself, the subject was "getting involved", from december of 2009, commencing on december 14, one year and one day ago.) on the 26th of december, i asked you some hard questions, john, and you never responded... oh well, such is life, eh? and, from the vantage point of a year later, you're merely another xml/tei "true believer" who came -- and went -- without doing anything... and now here you come again... > (yes, BB, I know about z.m.l) oh do you now? then how about some feedback on this: > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.pdf that was auto-generated from this: > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.zml and here's the .html that was auto-generated: > http://z-m-l.com/walha/walha.html i'd also be willing to give feedback on your ivanhoe stuff. if you want any, that is. are you tough enough to take it? *** alex said: > The markup kinda reminds me of SiSU, > which I also thought was pretty cool. the links above take you to my versions of the new book by cory doctorow. cory used sisu to create his e-versions, so you can go to his site and get the output created by sisu, and compare it to mine. i believe most people will like mine. sisu is also more difficult when it comes to creating the master. which isn't to say that sisu is a bad system. it's just not the best. but you don't have to trust me... go and take a look for yourself, and then come back here and discuss your findings with me. ok? -bowerbird

2 1

Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 15 Dec '10

15 Dec '10

jim said: > Seems to me that a human-generated HTML > *is* a non-trivial derivative work > since the choice of HTML coding > *is* a human artistic effort chosen > to make the software run well > on one or more ebook readers > and/or HTML browsers, and as such > *is* creative derivative work worthy of copyright. > IE I am arguing that writing HTML is writing "software" > and is not just "printer's art." it might seem that way to you... but precedent sides against you. legally, a ruling has been issued; markup is sweat, not authorship... as for d.r.m., amazon lets publishers decide on that matter for themselves. but isn't that point moot if the e-books are constantly freely available from p.g.? i understand the importance of fighting the symbolic battle, but there's no use in wasting ammunition senselessly, is there? -bowerbird

4 5

a tip of a cap to the man
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 11 Dec '10

11 Dec '10

it's december 10th, which i seem to remember is the birthday of michael hart's father, who is the man behind the man behind project gutenberg. so here's a tip of a cap to the shakespeare scholar. -bowerbird

2 1

Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 11 Dec '10

11 Dec '10

oh my goodness, where have you been, al? this sure ain't news. and newby wonders if it's "ethical". spare me the deliberations. here's the thing: project gutenberg could have set itself up as a publisher with amazon, and sold its e-books for whatever it wants to charge, but project gutenberg decided not to do that. you could've also dictated that every page of every one of the books was available under amazon's "look inside this book" functionality. but again, you decided not to go that route. was that a good decision? heck no, it was a _stupid_ decision... but that's the decision that project gutenberg made. so live with it, and live with the consequences... and tell your contributors that _they_ need to live with it too... heck, jim even came here _begging_ you to make things better... he even did the work for you, and mounted the solution himself. but his efforts were ignored. you might wanna read this recent article from time magazine: > http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/printout/0,29239,2032304_2032746… the takeaway sentence is this: > It turns out that there is something that can compete with free: easy. of course, _free_and_easy_ tops everything. but you opted out of that. and now you want to whine. -bowerbird

11 13

Free Speech, eBook Readers, and the Nobel Peace Prize
by Jim Adcock 11 Dec '10

11 Dec '10

As we complain about the Mickey Mouse copyright laws, perhaps it is time to take a moment to reflect on Free Speech, the Nobel Peace Prize, and where our beloved eBook readers are coming from: Kindle: China Nook: China Kobo: Taiwan iPad: China Samsung Galaxy Tab: Korea Sony 505: China So, most of our "freedom readers" are coming from military dictatorships where the people actually making these products do not have a choice of what they can say nor what they can read. Not sure what to do about it--given that our press has taboos that they cannot or will not talk about nowadays either.

1 0

How are the ebook files generated?
by Paul Flo Williams 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

I've nearly finished producing my first text for PG and, in order to test the HTML, I've been viewing it in Firefox and also using kindlegen to convert it to Mobipocket format, which I'm then using a Kindle to view. I've been hunting for details of the current conversion process on the Wiki, and haven't come across any concrete information about how PG does the conversions. Could anyone please point me to the documents or software that are used?

3 4