- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

re: [gutvol-d] Posting TEI
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

marcello said: > A TEI text is basically a text file. right. if you could tell josh this, i'd appreciate it. > So you can read it in any editor. "read" might not be the best word-choice there. "view" is more appropriate, i would think, since the markup will often obscure the content itself. > If you use emacs you can also > validate the TEI file against the DTD > without leaving the editor. that's a nice thing to be able to do. but the .tei might be _valid_ and still not do what it's supposed to do, accurately reflect the underlying structure and therefore result in a correct rendering... because i know you're all curious, with the z.m.l. authoring-tool, people will be able to see exactly what the viewer-program will display, in a window alongside their edit window. if it doesn't look right in the display window, you make changes in the edit window until it does. the rules are so simple that this is very easy to do. > A perfectly valid TEI file with no spelling errors > should be good enough to post. only if it's marked up _correctly_, though, right? > So we can have bith an alice30.pgtei and an alice30.jtei. that sounds like loads of fun... twice as much, at least! -bowerbird

1 0

re: re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

josh said: > ZML ... IS ... NOT ... PLAIN ... TEXT! of course it is. x.m.l. and h.t.m.l. and s.g.m.l. are too. it all reduces down to 1s and 0s. it's just that some formats are more or less readable in that state. -bowerbird

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Joshua Hutchinson 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

----- Original Message ----- From: Bowerbird(a)aol.com > meanwhile, i will point out once again that nobody has challenged my > contention that i can represent all important book features using z.m.l. > plain text, when formatted wisely, is far more powerful than you know. Repeat after me... ZML ... IS ... NOT ... PLAIN ... TEXT!

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

joshua said: > NONE of us (not even bowerbird) is expecting Joe Sixpack > to have the conversion tools loaded on his computer. i expect that joe sixpack won't _need_ a "conversion tool" because my viewer will give him more e-book functionality from z.m.l. plain-text than any other format/viewer gives him. and if it happens he _does_ need a conversion for a good reason, then i'll build that conversion routine into my program for him... so i _do_ expect that he'll have a conversion tool on his computer, but i _also_ expect that he'll never find any good reason to use it... (in the long run, anyway. but until my viewer is ported to the pda, and to web-servers, an .html converter will probably be necessary.) -bowerbird

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

starner said: > The value of XML is in what it includes that plain text doesn't, > and a lot of that is lost in the plain text version. lost? or just not currently included? or even deliberately thrown out? consider carefully what your language implies, it might constrain you... meanwhile, i will point out once again that nobody has challenged my contention that i can represent all important book features using z.m.l. plain text, when formatted wisely, is far more powerful than you know. -bowerbird

1 0

re: coming to michael doorstep with hat in hand
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

the hacker said: > Nor do I care. I only care for the ones who are > willing to make their lives, and the lives of others better. > For the users who refuse to learn, to adapt, and to grow, > they can stagnate and stay in their own nice warm puddle. fine. i have no problem with that. none whatsoever. take whatever attitude you want to, that's what i do. but michael hart's attitude -- which is the one that has made project gutenberg the most successful e-library in all cyberspace -- is to serve the trailing-edge user... and now _you_ -- like so many other e-book initiatives before, and i specifically include myself in that group -- find yourself coming here to use michael's e-text files for your own purpose. kind of ironic, isn't it? -bowerbird

2 1

re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

marcello said: > You should definitely learn to get your quotes right. > all your base are belong to us except _that_ doesn't correspond to what ingram said... which is precisely why i reworked the phrase. and whether you rework gibberish "correctly" or not seems to be rather beside the point, not? at any rate, have a nice day, marcello. :+) -bowerbird

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book
by Joshua Hutchinson 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? By page break, I mean when you get to the bottom of the physical piece of paper. What you describe sounds more to me like what I usually refer to as a thought break ... a little white space or a graphic symbol between sections of text to indicate a scene transition or time passing, etc. Typically, in PG texts, those are marked with 5 asterisks (functionally equivalent to your # # #). Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: Gutenberg9443(a)aol.com Speaking as a writer, I strongly disagree. I often use page breaks as a transition, and most other fiction writers do the same thing. (That's where I learned it.) To keep page breaks in a TXT version, simply insert # # # at the left margin where the page break belongs. That way TXT isn't confused or confusing, and the reader can see that as a page break. Anne

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

jon said: > And when we at DP find a markup format we're comfortable with, > then PG had better get comfortable with it as well, because > we are now produce the vast majority of all PG material. "we make all your base." -bowerbird

3 2

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Why Bowerbird is a genius
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

marcello said: > Malicious tongues would argue that malicious tongues would, would they? but _your_tongue_ wouldn't, would it? > Malicious tongues would argue that > you want to keep beta-testers from > using their own ZML texts once they have helped me locate all the bugs in the program, i'll actively _want_ beta-testers to run their own z.m.l. texts. until then, though, i don't want somebody reporting a "bug" in the program that is _actually_ due to their improper z.m.l. you have to do things in the correct order, that's all. people also have to keep in mind that the rules of z.m.l. are also "in-progress" at the same time, being continually refined, as conditions require, so there are many open parameters here. use of a constrained set of texts is the logical course of action. > and discovering what a useless piece of crap your software is. well, much better to learn that early from the beta copy than having to wait all that time for the release version, don't you think? :+) -bowerbird p.s. one definition: "condone... 2. to give tacit approval to: _by_his_silence,_he_seemed_to_condone_their_behavior_." -- page 278, random house webster's college dictionary...

1 0