ok, in discussing one of the books on rfrank's roundless test-site,
i remarked that the scans were badly done, uncharacteristic of roger.
much more in keeping with his typical level of quality are the scans
from a new book on the site, a biography about nathan hale, so i've
scraped and remounted those scans on my site, and will do the book.
> http://z-m-l.com/go/nhale/nhalep123.html
> http://z-m-l.com/go/nhale/nhale.zml
as i've been doing lately, the last page of the book shows the changes
that i made to the file to clean it up, to show people how simple it is...
this book has a lot of correspondence in it (so it has salutations and
signatures and stuff like that), and i haven't done such books before,
so i'm gonna have to figure out how to handle all of that in z.m.l.,
which means looking at a bunch of p.g. e-texts to see how people
have represented them in the .txt versions up to this point in time...
meanwhile, i'm just dealing with them in a presentational manner,
either left-justifying or centering or right-justifying, as appropriate.
it should be easy to see how i've indicated that by viewing the pages.
(i simply used underbars and equal-signs to indicate each of them.)
the book still needs some work. but even now, it's a demonstration
of how quickly one person can make a book available to the public...
-bowerbird
ok, so there's a new e-book viewer-program in town.
liza daly, who is affiliated with the o'reilly folks, has
brought out "ibisreader" for your reading enjoyment.
so i went to check it out...
at ibisreader.com, i clicked "get started" and then --
at "add a book" -- "feedbooks: popular public domain".
the 4th book down is "alice's adventures in wonderland",
and since the movie is coming out this friday, i got that.
feedbooks, as you probably know, is a site that takes
e-books from various sources, like project gutenberg,
and makes some very nice-looking versions of them...
since feedbooks re-works the books, they don't have
as many books as some of the other sites, but they are
preferred by many people because their books look nice.
so i start looking at the text, and i find this:
> There was nothing so very remarkable in that;
> nor did Alice think it so very much out of the way
> to hear the Rabbit say to itself “Oh dear! Oh dear!
> I shall be too late!” (when she thought it over
> afterwards, it occurred to her that she ought to
> have wondered at this, but at the time it all seemed
> quite natural); but when the Rabbit actually
> took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket,
> and looked at it, and then hurried on,
> Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind
> that she had never before seen a rabbit with
> either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it,
> and, burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it,
> and was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole
> under the hedge.
well, gee. if you're intimately familiar with this book, you know
> took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket,
is a phrase that is _italicized_ in the book. but not on this file...
here's where you can see a copy of the original:
> http://www.archive.org/stream/alicesadventur00carr#page/2/mode/2up
you'll have to take my word for it that it's not italicized in the
feedbooks copy that is being used by ibisreader, since i don't
see any convenient way for me to link to a specific page there.
(but it's book #22 from feedbooks, if you wanna look yourself.)
it's pretty clear that what has happened here is that feedbooks
has taken pg#11 and used it as its source. what is a sad thing,
because -- even after all the years it coulda been "improved" --
pg#11 _still_ doesn't have proper italics in it. it was "updated"
in 2005 (leaving no trace behind) and then once again in 2008
(when an .html version was added). but it still has zero italics.
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11/11-h/11-h.htm
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11/11.txt
the p.g. version _does_ have italics rendered as all-uppercase.
so there is _some_ indication of them. but this is ambiguous,
since there are places in the book where uppercase is used too:
> http://www.archive.org/stream/alicesadventur00carr#page/4/mode/2up
(see the reference to "orange marmalade", in all-uppercase.)
if i would've been feedbooks, i would've converted _all_ of the
uppercased words to italics. but of course then they would've
been changing things like chapter headers and first-words too.
and of course, feedbooks could've _left_ words in all-uppercase.
i don't know why they didn't, but i assume it's because they take
_pride_ in their typography, and all-uppercase looks like crap...
(but it's true that the tell-tale examples of _actual_ uppercase,
namely "orange marmalade", "drink me", and "eat me", are all
still rendered in uppercase in feedbooks#22, so i am stumped.)
and yes, folks, i know there are other versions of "alice" posted,
including some with italics correctly specified. so let us look...
pg#19033 _does_ have italics in it, but it does _not_ italicize
the phrase about the rabbit, and his watch, and his pocket...
whether it's a version-difference -- it _is_ another version --
or whether it's just a digitization mistake, i simply don't know.
(and since this is clearly not the explanation for the feedbooks
discrepancies, i have no interest in determining the reasons.)
pg#928 -- an .html version only -- _does_ have italics. yay!
pg#28885 also has the italics, and it has the images as well!
although sometimes things don't go right, as shown here:
> http://z-m-l.com/misc/alice-glitch.png
the feedbooks version has _no_ italics at all, as far as i can see,
not even the different set of italics from pg#19033. so, at first,
i had thought they'd used pg#11 as their source text, but now,
i'm not so sure. (they have some strange contractions, which
could indicate that they might've done their own digitization.)
at any rate, the point still stands that pg#11 lacks proper italics.
all-uppercase is _not_ a substitute. and since the italics _have_
been done -- in pg#928 -- the changes should be incorporated
into pg#11. the presence of other versions, at higher numbers,
won't change the fact that pg#11 is considered as "the original."
so, c'mon, let's see someone who talks about pg/dp "quality"
and "incremental improvement" actually _back_up_ the claim.
let's get this classic and legendary e-text cleaned up now, ok?
-bowerbird
