April 2011 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: awfully quiet -- 2555 chances at redemption
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 03 Sep '11

03 Sep '11

i said: > how the finally situation will resolve itself... mixed got i words there up some. *** rickywong said: > I know the guys at bookglutton. They aren't alone. i'm not sure what "alone" means there... > I think the term "social reading" is > quite broad and for different purpose. ok. > I'm looking more at enhanced content. then i'm not sure you picked the best examples. because i'd say it's gonna be pretty difficult to "enhance" things like "alice in wonderland" or "art of war" or the bible. or maybe not, i dunno. at any rate, i'd love to see you take your stab at it. i hope other people here give you feedback too... -bowerbird

2 1

spring has sprung
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 19 May '11

19 May '11

devastation on three fronts in japan... and american soldiers on three fronts in the middle east... so what is the project gutenberg list doing to distract itself? having a discussion about d.r.m., of course. _of_course._ *** anyway, i sure can't help in japan, or the middle-east, but nonetheless i refuse to waste any time on d.r.m. so how about a quick overview of the common purpose? project gutenberg is tooling along at around e-text #35650. notable recent entries include #33333, "the statute of anne", produced by michael hart. page-images were included, and this e-text retains the line-breaks from those original pages, even including the end-of-line-hyphenates. what a surprise. #34567 is "paradise bend", and it was produced by al haines. *** the "progress" of restructured-text through d.p. continues to be tortuous... it looks like rfrank has defected to pg-canada, where they don't have to pay the epubmaker toll to marcello. meanwhile, one person has created a "dp2rst" python script. i guess if you patch enough scripts into the workflow, you just might get something that provides a smooth transition. well, either that, or you just get a truly botched workflow... either way, d.p. seems to have chased away all the p1 people, yet it still has a hard time keeping text in that queue, which is something of a mystery. but there have ceased to be any discussions of any backlogs in the forums, so i guess they've solved all of those problems... i'm not sure how they did it. maybe someone there will record the solution for posterity. *** all joking aside, distributed proofreaders is closely upon its 20,000 title... it will come along in the next few weeks, and stands as a testament that d.p. is more interesting in doing new digitizations than fixing the errors in the existing ones. to think that i first suggested reviewing old titles and fixing the errors in them way back in december of 2003, when p.g. was celebrating its 10,000th title. little did i know then that the library's quality would seemingly _never_ be a concern... i made the suggestion again at #15,000, and then at #20,000, after which i realized it was fruitless, and basically gave it up. oh well, this is a volunteer organization, and the volunteers make the decisions as to where their priorities are, and if _i_ don't like it, then i should just get up off of my fat ass, right? right. so that's what i'm gonna do, go for a nice little walk... after all, it's a lovely spring day here in santa monica... :+) -bowerbird

4 3

Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Apr '11

25 Apr '11

i'm not gonna get trapped in this "debate" again. i'm not. i'm just here to tell it like it is, this one time, and then i'm done with this stupid topic. when a book is released as a formless blob, and people have no option for standardizing that blob, they'll find that it is difficult to have discussions about that book, because they will be unable to point to specific places. if books are formless blobs, this problem is inevitable. people will invent forms of "standardizing" the blobs, and they will utilize various tools that allow them to "point", but they will eventually realize that page-numbers are a pretty good idea, with a long-standing history and excellent familiarity, so that's how the issue will resolve. and this answer is just as inevitable as the problem was. people who just want to read a book, and who have no need to discuss the book with other human beings, will be happy with a formless blob that allows them to render the book (either on-screen or printed-out) in a way that accords with their preferences. that is great. but people who have a desire to discuss the book with other people will quickly come to an agreement that they need to have a standardized format to aid dialog. the "canonical" version -- with "canonical pagination" -- will serve as this standardized format. that is inevitable. page-numbers are most decidedly _not_ "old-fashioned". print-on-demand machines have already slashed the price of one-off books to a-penny-a-page, so we have _not_ seen the end of printed books. indeed, we are like to see the number of printed-books _increase_ in coming decades. (their percentage will dwindle, compared to e-books, but the total _number_ of printed-books will increase, steadily. not only are they convenient, they are tangible souvenirs. if a book is _meaningful_ to you, it'll be a badge of pride that you paid a few dollars for your own physical version, one that is unique to you, not just a copy of a digital file. it's the rough equivalent of buying a t-shirt at a concert.) so the world will continue to be awash in printed-books. and yes, many of these books will be "one-offs" where their pagination is different from every other "one-off". but many of them will utilize "the canonical pagination" because their readers will _want_ the "standard" edition. (for one, it'll be easier to prove that it's "the real thing", and hasn't been corrupted in some nefarious fashion.) that's the way things will turn out. mark my words, folks. because i'm not gonna tell you again. you are too dense. -bowerbird

7 8

Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

benjamin said: > You just did. Again. thanks for noticing, benjamin. i think i added something to the thread. which is always my reason for posting... but i think it is good to inform people that you don't think a topic is discussion-worthy, because _they_ aren't adding enough value... further, because it occurred to me, and because i need a reason for _this_ post to be worthwhile, i will note that the important consideration here is that the _citation_ be available to the _public_. after all, that's what a "citation" _means_, isn't it? so, using the terminology of today and tomorrow, the u.r.l. might well serve as the reference point... but that's only _if_ the link has some permanence associated with it. it is that _permanence_ where we fall down, for the most part, in today's world... for instance, here's a reference to benjamin's post: > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/private/gutvol-d/2011-April/007748.html but that fails because it's not available to the public. and who knows how long that that page remains up? likewise, a blog posting has a u.r.l., and that's good. that serves as a "canonical reference", to a degree... and -- at least under some blog systems -- each of the comments has a unique u.r.l. associated with it. but, referring back to the problem i just mentioned, when we print out a blog post with all its comments, or benjamin's post from the mailman archives, we'll generally _lose_ the u.r.l. furthermore, in regard to _comments_ on a blog article, we usually never even _see_ the u.r.l. which is associated with each of them, and that increases the problems inherent in using it as a referent we could use to discuss it with others. this is one of those problems where a solution seems like it _should_ be simple, but every time you think you get a handle on one, you discover that it's too slippery. which is why a "discussion" with people who haven't even _thought_ about the issue very deeply, let alone tried to come up with some _solutions_ to the problem, is so unfulfilling. and that is why i'm not going there... even though i just did. again. and i will go there again, if i need to, to tell you people even more things that will frustrate your "solutions"... thus you will have to resign yourself to moaning about the problem. or how pagenumbers "can't" be a solution, because, oh my god, you know, they're so old-fashioned! or perhaps, like benjamin, you will be reduced to making meta-comments. which add nothing to the conversation. except a little snark value, i guess... and i do love snark... :+) anyway, have a good easter weekend folks... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

travis said: > Page numbers aren't the only method of > marking off measurable sections of text. no, they certainly aren't. especially with electronic-books, we could invent any number of other methods as well. many people have tried. and have you heard about any of them actually achieving success? no, you haven't, because none of them have... > They just make the most sense > when you're dealing with physical materials > that are laid out in page form. well, if we're taking about ink-on-paper books, then pagenumbers won _that_ battle long ago... the only other system with any traction at all is the book/chapter/verse system used in bibles. *** but let me tell you the biggest stickler of all... it's that whatever new system that you invent, it's going to have to work with material that has been printed-out. you can talk about the "search" capability of e-books until you are blue in the face, but that's not going to work, since it won't work once a book is printed out. and you can talk about numbering paragraphs, or sentences, or the letter "e", just to name a few of the suggestions that have been made -- or the "bookmarks" that travis suggests -- but then you're going to have to ensure that everyone agrees on the counting system -- does an ordered list count as "a paragraph"? -- and that your new numbering system gets printed out with every printout that gets made. (with a million nightmares lurking inside that.) oh, yeah, and another "small matter" is that you're going to have to _convert_ all of those pagenumber references in our cultural legacy (you know, the books that were "born physical") into your new system. good luck with _that_... *** so, no, kids, i ain't doing this discussion again. things will play out _exactly_ as i said they will. we will end up with pagenumbers because nothing else will work as well or as reliably, and be robust across the range of conditions. and if you don't even have a _contender_ for a solution, let alone one that has proven itself, then maybe you shouldn't even be in this dialog. *** > stating uncatagorically that spellcheck says you spelled that word wrong... > stating uncatagorically that > it *will* be page numbers is just silly. you just watch, travis. you'll see that i'm right... and then _you_ will be the one who fills "silly"... -bowerbird

2 1

amusing
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

jim said: > So your "solution" is to abdicate to Google? > Sorry I don't find that a satisfactory solution. this is amusing, jim... but, ironically, it's not funny... it's as if you are determined to prove that you're dense. these are the 3 major legs on this journey: 1. we realize that we have a problem. 2. we can't agree on any "new" solution. 3. we return to "canonical pagination". congratulations. you're up to leg #2... of course, it will take some time for you to recognize that _nobody_ can agree... and it'll take more time for enough people to conclude that no "new solution" works well enough that we can use it dependably, because somebody will always have some new scheme that they will want to try, and it'll take time before we discover it's flawed. and it will take even more time for enough of us to realize that "canonical pagination" is the only solution that has any chance of working well enough we can depend on it. but that _is_ where we'll end up. i assure you. now please, leave me alone. it's getting boring. -bowerbird

1 0

Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

um, jim, if that's the best comeback you've got, it would be better if you just declined to post... your "4800+" copies are all virtually worthless... you score no points for yourself by reiterating that. here's page 123 of the 1844 edition of pride and prejudice: > http://books.google.com/books?id=vKYBAAAAQAAJ& dq=intitle%3Apride%20intitle%3Aand%20intitle%3Aprejudice%20inauthor%3Ajane%20inauthor%3Aausten& pg=PA123#v=onepage&q&f=false that should serve as a good example, for the time being... of course, it's only as "permanent" as google wants it to be. the library of congress _should_ be guaranteeing our accessibility to our culture, but it seems the government has abdicated all of its responsibilities, thanks to the coldblooded republican tea-baggers and their obscenely excessively wealthy corporate puppet-masters. -bowerbird

2 1

Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

here's a friendlier version of that u.r.l. > http://books.google.com/books?id=vKYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA123 that's page 123 of the 1844 edition of "pride and prejudice". you can look it up. so can anyone else. now leave me alone. -bowerbird

1 0

Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

jim said: > Jane Austen P&P is available in 4,800+ formats from > Amazon today alone, none of which agree on page > numbers. Page numbers are hopeless to use as cites. jim, listen closely to me: you are dense. you don't seem to realize it, but you are arguing my position, albeit quite clumsily. your "4800+ formats" position summarizes the problem, which, as i said, is inevitable. the next step, as i just told you, is that people will try to invent other ways to "point at" a particular passage to discuss. none of these methods will be compelling, and there will be widespread disagreement about which to utilize, thereby creating what social psychologists call "coordination trouble". which will bring about the third step, which i also just informed you about, which is to agree on a method of "canonical pagination". you're fixated on step 1 of a 3-step process. that's because you're dense, jim. d-e-n-s-e. and you also appear not to know that we have already discussed this particular instance here. it was back in september of 2007, when your good buddy marcello brought up the topic... just exactly like you, he pointed out that there are many editions of "pride and prejudice", and each of them differs in their pagination, thus he asked "which pagenumbers we should use?" the answer was simple: it depends upon which particular edition you are digitizing, and which edition you'll wish to refer people to, for dialog. you can see my response here: > http://z-m-l.com/go/pap/pride%20and%20prejudice(4).txt at the time, i found 4 different editions digitized online. so i said this; > if you're digitizing the 1844, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. > if you're digitizing the 1853, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. > if you're digitizing the 1870, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. > if you're digitizing the 1892, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. i also said this: > i put the scans of the first page on my site for your convenience: > http://z-m-l.com/go/pap/pride_and_prejudice(4).html so, once we evolve to step 3 of our 3-step process, we will adopt one of these 4 "canonical paginations" for "pride and prejudice" -- depending up which of the 4 editions we wish to use for our discussion -- and it will be necessary for the e-book that we use for our discussion to be able to attain that pagination. and if none of the 4800+ versions of the book up already can perform the task of attaining one of these paginations, we'll toss them into the garbage, and that will decide that. so this is what i was doing at 4:20 on 4/20, showing jim -- once again -- that he's dense... i must be dense too... but i'll learn... i'm gonna go get high now... -bowerbird

3 2

the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Apr '11

21 Apr '11

a few months back, amazon began pushing out support in its kindle e-books for "real" page numbers, namely the page numbers taken from a print version of the book. > http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/02/amazon-adds-real-page-numbers-to-kin… it ends up that humans don't like the idea of a book as a formless blob of text. who knew? well, i did, for one... -bowerbird p.s. um, and no, i won't entertain your arguments once again. if you feel you must preach the doctrine of the formless blob, go yabber at amazon. thank you. have a nice day. peace out.

6 7