- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Bold New E-readers Grab Attention at CES
by Michael S. Hart 10 Jan '10

10 Jan '10

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/08/ces.ereader/index.html

2 1

books without a zip version
by Aaron Cannon 09 Jan '10

09 Jan '10

Hi all. I've noticed that there are a few .txt books, and a few .rtf books in the collection that don't have zip versions. Is there any reason for this? One example is: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/30152 This rtf file could be compressed to about 16% of its uncompressed size. Was there some stipulation from this particular copyright holder that his books not be zipped? Thanks. Aaron

2 1

Re: why the plain-text format is the most useful format for eliciting beauty (and more)
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 09 Jan '10

09 Jan '10

jim said: > Leading and following underscores are not plain text. sure they are. indeed, the underscore even falls in the 7-bit range. so it's as plain-text as plain-text can be, and it has a long and glorious tradition of indicating emphasis. > It is an encoding to signal to the reader that > something is missing -- namely italics. actually, i think of it as an indicator to the "rendering agent" -- a.k.a. the viewer-program -- that the surrounded text is to be displayed with emphasis. (which generally means italics.) > One could have just as well -- or as badly -- used > [i]and[/i] as the signals to indicate to the reader > that italics is missing. i used square-brackets rather than angle-brackets in the quote, but i could have used angle-brackets just like you did, jim... and yes, sir, any of those will work. indeed, .html uses the angle-brackets, and many bulletin-board systems use the square-brackets. and this is fine, because they use those brackets as _markup_, with no intention that the brackets will actually be _seen_ by any human beings. and likewise, i don't intend my underscores to be seen by human beings. just like .html, or forum markup, i expect that a viewer-app will intercede and display the emphasis just as i had intended. however -- and this is a very big _however_ -- in the case that those underscores _are_ being seen by actual human beings, it's not really all that much of a problem, because underscores are relatively non-intrusive, and they seem to provide emphasis, which is why they developed -- spontaneously -- for that purpose. the brackets, on the other hand, are terribly intrusive, and only obliterate the text to be emphasized, rather than emphasize it. likewise, the other bracket commands all serve as _obstacles_ to a human being who happens to be reading the text, and even to those human beings who have to work with the text in other capacities, such as editing it. z.m.l., on the other hand, is zen. that's why light-markup systems are taking over the world now. > I don't doubt that eventually the reader can get used to > what they're missing -- but why should they have to? they shouldn't. that's why i have programmed the viewer-apps that ensure that people don't have to read z.m.l. in its raw form. > If it were really that hard to much more closely follow > author's intent then I could understand the trade-offs. > But with today's technology it really wouldn't be hard > to do much better. i agree. we can do much better than what we have been handed. -bowerbird

16 23

good luck, mr. kretz
by bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Jan '10

08 Jan '10

over on a d.p. forum, dkretz said: > I've just taken several EB projects and > actually looked at the errors corrected in P1/P2 > (they don't get to P3 fast enough to be useful) > and most fixes could have been identified and > applied in pre-processing, and/or highlighted by > better proofing tools in the rounds. > > http://www.pgdp.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=629620#629620 i'd like to thank don for (re-)doing my missionary work. of course, the d.p. "powers that be" have ignored don for as many years as they've ignored me, but since he hasn't pissed them off to the point of _banning_ him, he's still able to fight the good fight against d.p. stupidity. he continues: > We've got to start planning and managing our work better. > We've learned so much in the years of our existence; > we've learned how much we don't know, but could find out > and use for feedback; and it's in our own interest > to get smarter about how we do our work. good luck, mr. kretz... -bowerbird

1 0

Public domain day 2010: "What could have been entering the public domain on January 1, 2010"
by Greg Newby 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

Good stuff: http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976 -- Greg

1 0

help with the DVD
by Aaron Cannon 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

Hi all. I'm working on the DVD again, and I could use some help. I'm going through the list of books on the Best of CD and finding the HTML versions (when they exist) of each of them in the catalog. Unfortunately, the list of books on the CD don't come with Ebook numbers, nor do their titles match the catalog, so this can't be automated easily. So, I have to look at each title and author and manually look it up in the catalog, and then get the name of the zipped HTML version from that. It's a time consuming process, and it would sure go a lot faster if I had even one more person to help out. If anyone is interested in lending a hand, or would like more info, please let me know. Also, if I missed something, and there is in fact a way to automate this, please share. Thanks. Aaron

4 4

Re: [gutvol-p] Re: Getting Involved
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 27 Dec '09

27 Dec '09

john said: > Hello Al, Juliet and Jim: > Thanks for your detailed replies. i guess those detailed replies were sent backchannel. i wonder why, in response to a post sent to a public listserve, people reply privately. why not in public, so everyone benefits? > More generally, I now understand that, if I can contribute at all, > it would be to help in packaging content for others to convert > to PDF, XML, or whatever other format may become fashionable > In this connection, the reply from Juliet looks very enticing. again, why not put this "enticing" reply on the public record? > To explain: I am one of the XML true believers and > TEI, or something like it, is ultimately the way to go. i'm glad you shared that with us, john. it's always good to know when someone is "a true believer", and "logic" might not apply... > But TEI seeks to be all-inclusive and doomed to be > very big and complicated (think SGML). well, very good. at least your "true believer" status doesn't prevent you from seeing some problems with the religion... > And working with XML is so painful and error-prone for humans. again, most excellent. most of the "true believers" tend to gloss over the difficulties... but you seem to be more aware. > I don't know how big the PGTEI subset is, but > there is a good chance that it might be expressible in > lightly marked-up text, which can easily be parsed into XML. my research shows you can assume that a "lightly marked-up text" will indeed be sufficient to cover the p.g.t.e.i. subset, and i agree that the lightly marked-up text can easily be parsed into x.m.l. > If that were the case, I can become usefully involved at the DP end. it's possible. > To state Basil Fawlty's bleedingly obvious, > it might then become PG's long-term aim > to provide PGTEI versions of all texts, > from which all styled versions can be derived-- > and the only one version to be maintained. there is a certain appeal to that logic, unquestionably... (and, since it's _logic_, there's no religion needed here!) > In summary, without being very clear about it, > I had thought that I might be able to contribute to PG by > generating more refined documents from existing books > (gratuitous, I admit); but now I suspect that > I might be more useful by wrestling with the software. well, first, that original belief of yours was not "gratuitous". the fact that it doesn't fit nicely within the p.g. workflow is as much the fault of the workflow as with your orientation. but we know who holds the power in this situation. i'm not sure that your .pdfs were indeed "more refined" -- i have become a bit allergic to that typical latex look, and there were some other basic problems with your output -- but your original intention was certainly a worthwhile one. and it would have been fun to pursue that approach a while. > (gratuitous, I admit); but now I suspect that > I might be more useful by wrestling with the software. as i said, it's possible. but you might find some potholes on that road too. i'd suggest that you study what rfrank has done at d.p. you will learn a lot from the false paths he has taken... however, john, before you disengage here entirely, i must share a certain question with you. pardon my impertinence. there's no need for you to answer this question, or even try to answer it. and i will add that i have no motive here to challenge your status as a "true believer" even if i could. (and part of your being a "true believer" is that i could not.) however, for the sake of those of us who are _not_ "believers", let alone "true", i feel a need to articulate this side of the wall. you've conceded that t.e.i. and x.m.l. are too complicated for most humans, including the vast majority of volunteers at d.p. and you've posited that light mark-up can be converted into these more-complicated systems for storage as the "master" from which we could then generate multiple e-book formats. so this is the layout in your head, as far as i can tell: s = simple system = light mark-up c = complicated system = heavy markup (p.g.t.e.i. or x.m.l.) m = multiple e-book formats so you're suggesting that the workflow look like this: s -> c -> m where "s" is what people work on, "c" is the master format that is maintained as the p.g. library, and "m" is the output. in particular, you're saying that you might be of some use in converting "s" into "c". and perhaps also "c" into "m". cool... the question i have is this: why shouldn't "s" be the "master" format, instead of "c"? after all, you've conceded that "s" is simple to maintain, whereas "c" is difficult. so why not maintain the library in a _simple_ format, and then -- whenever we want to convert the books into the "m" multiple output formats -- make the s->c conversion the first step in that process? further, why not skip the "c" step entirely, and just convert "s" into "m" directly, if it's possible, and why wouldn't it be? oops. i guess that's two questions. but you get my drift... -bowerbird

1 0

New mobile reader (Fwd: Suggested wiki update - EPUB files readable on Windows Mobile by Freda)
by Greg Newby 26 Dec '09

26 Dec '09

If you have a Windows Mobile device and can test this software, please let me know what you think: www.jim-chapman.net/freda Thanks! Greg ----- Forwarded message from Jim Chapman <home(a)jim-chapman.net> ----- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:15:20 +0000 From: Jim Chapman <home(a)jim-chapman.net> To: help(a)pglaf.org Subject: Suggested wiki update - EPUB files readable on Windows Mobile by Freda User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) Hi, I have a suggestion for you - you might want to consider updating your wiki entry at: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Help_on_Bibliographic_Record_Page#E… You could mention the new program Freda (www.jim-chapman.net/freda) which I just released. It reads EPUBs on Windows Mobile devices (PDAs, phones, etc.). I've tested it on various Gutenberg EPUBs and it seems to do a decent job. Thanks, Jim ----- End forwarded message ----- Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation http://gutenberg.org A 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization with EIN 64-6221541 gbnewby(a)pglaf.org

1 0

Re: distributed proofreaders, bored with public domain books, swi
by bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Dec '09

26 Dec '09

walter said: > Just live and let live. i'm curious, walter. does "live and let live", as a philosophy, allow a person to make an observation? to register an opinion? to present argumentation? to share research? to lay out constructive criticism? or even unconstructive criticism? to engage in a barn-raising? to communicate in general? because i sense some inconsistencies in your position. but perhaps there is something i have misunderstood, so i am asking you for clarification first... after all, the vagaries of interpretation in cyberspace communications mean one can spin out all kinds of nonsense, but that doesn't really help anyone to come to greater understanding, does it? -bowerbird

1 0

distributed proofreaders, bored with public domain books, switches to new york times
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 26 Dec '09

26 Dec '09

in a development that's received support with very little opposition or controversy, distributed proofreaders plans to do proofing for the new york times, which is apparently going through such a rough financial patch that they are looking for volunteers instead of actually paying people... > http://www.pgdp.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=41731 ok, it's not a complete switch. at least that's not the plan. but since the book queues are full of b.o.c. (d.p. lingo for "boring old crap"), how many people will linger there long? unless i'm reading it wrong, that is. will someone, please, anyone!, tell me i'm reading it wrong? please, someone... -bowerbird

3 2