- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: [gutvol-d] ANNOUNCEMENT: XML has hit the PG archives!
by Joshua Hutchinson 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Noring" <jon(a)noring.name> > > Another issue of incompatibility, where CSS may break down, is that > the table model in TEI is different in some ways from the HTML table > model. Not sure if this can be fixed with CSS 'display'. Does PG-TEI > include support for TEI tables? (I would assume it does.) > Yes it does. See www.gutenberg.org/tei for a link to the documentation we have on PGTEI. > > PGTEI --> XHTML 1.1 (or XHTML 1.0 Strict) --> OEBPS 1.x Document(s) > > OEBPS 1.x document(s) + OEBPS Package --> OEBPS 1.x Publication > If you or anyone else would like to code something up, I'd be happy to test it out. I'm afraid my talents do not lie in that direction! ;) Josh

2 1

re: the great programmer
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

marcello said: > ROTFL: the great programmer > can't figure out how to > install a decent mail program. > Your words are soo big, > but your actual abilities are pretty small. yeah, i'm just one of the 30 million a.o.l. idiots slobbering on our keyboards... :+) -bowerbird

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] About the XML debate
by Joshua Hutchinson 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

I played a little with the ReaderWorks converter for HTML to LIT. The biggest limitation is that the LIT format supports a nice Table of Contents feature which a basic HTML to LIT conversion doesn't support. The LIT specs are supposedly free (and under a Free License) but I haven't checked into it any further than that. I supposed after TXT, HTML and PDF are working in the PG mainstream, I'll move on to other formats like the Palm and Reader formats. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcello Perathoner" <marcello(a)perathoner.de> > > Joshua Hutchinson wrote: > > > Marcello had a Palm format working at one point, if I remember correctly. > > I dropped it because pluckering the html file gives you a better experience at > a smaller file size. > > The same conversion should be possible for Pocket-PC formats, but I'm not > going to buy one just to test this. > > > -- Marcello Perathoner > webmaster(a)gutenberg.org > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

6 13

re: [gutvol-d] ANNOUNCEMENT: XML has hit the PG archives!
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Aug '05

21 Aug '05

joshua said: > ANNOUNCEMENT: XML has hit the PG archives! that's great! one down, 16000+ left to convert... congratulations! -bowerbird

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] About the XML debate
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Aug '05

21 Aug '05

brad said: > I don't understand why a person who hates XML/HTML > so much sends HTML formated mail to the list. it's been forced upon me, as i can't turn it off. > You should really practice what you preach :) yes, i should. instead the powers-that-be are forcing things on me, which is what y'all preach. ;+) meanwhile, this thread has hit 20+ posts over the weekend, which is very rude, since many people do not check their e-mailboxes on the weekend, so i'll opt out until tomorrow. -bowerbird

3 2

re: narrow-minded free software bigot bastard, and proud of it
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Aug '05

21 Aug '05

marcello said: > Besides, I'm a narrow-minded free software bigot bastard > and proud of it. great. i like people who stand up for what they believe in. now i have a question. who runs project gutenberg, anyway? -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] About the XML debate
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Aug '05

21 Aug '05

jon noring said something or other. however, since jon is still moderating michael hart over on jon's listserve, i won't be responding to him. -bowerbird

2 1

Another rule 6 question
by Greg Weeks 21 Aug '05

21 Aug '05

When a book is cleared with rule 6, is the artwork cleared also? Can the artwork for the cover and interior illustration have a separate renewal? -- Greg Weeks http://durendal.org:8080/greg/

2 1

re: [gutvol-d] About the XML debate
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Aug '05

21 Aug '05

andrew said: > having a variety of file formats to deal with > does sometimes make quite a headache. yes, having a master-file is indeed a good thing. but it's just not true that x.m.l. is the only form that a master can take. and it might not be true that x.m.l. is even the _best_ form that it can take. again, david moynihan at blackmask.com has proven that x.m.l. isn't necessary to generate lots of formats. through the use of standardized formatting, he has been able to do what none of you have even been able to start. but hey, i look forward to the day when you do get underway, and to the time long after that when all the markup gets done, because then the e-texts will finally be in a regularized format... -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] About the XML debate
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 20 Aug '05

20 Aug '05

brad said: > As has already been mentioned, > ASCII is an encoding and plaintext is a format. i fail to see how this distinction has any importance to the original point. the user wants the words free of markup. > And ASCII is being replaced with Unicode. Some decades > from now ASCII will gradually go the way of the Dodo. well, if you want to get into this kind of doubletalk -- which i don't because, as i just said, it has no importance -- then it is inaccurate to say that ascii is "being replaced" by unicode, since the bottom 127 characters of unicode are the same 127 ascii characters we've come to know. if we give the original poster a unicode-aware text-editor, and a file that contains no heavy markup, he will be happy. he wants the words, all the words, and nothing but the words. > As for plaintext, one of the core design goals for XML is that > it you'll be able to open it in any text editor and read it. ok, and now here you seem to be trying to say that an x.m.l. file is a plain-text file. it's not. it might consist of nothing more than those 127 ascii characters, but it is decidedly not a plain-text file. the original poster knows it's not plain-text. so does michael hart. most people do. including, i suspect, you. why confuse the issue? > If a file is human readable when it's opened in a text editor > then it's a type of plain text. again, this subterfuge is dishonest. first, it's inaccurate to say that an x.m.l. file is "human readable". and second, it's misleading to say it is "a type of plain text". it might be an ascii file, but it's decidedly _not_ "plain-text". > All XML does is place tags around text in order to > give the text a structure that machines can understand. you give machines far too little credit. they can be made to be far smarter than a dirt-dumb x.m.l. processor, which can _only_ be made to "understand" the structure of text _if_ it is tagged. > As long as you have a text editor, you'll be able to read XML. let's give the original poster an x.m.l. file, and have _him_ say whether he is able to "read it". just because you can load a file into a text-editor doesn't mean you'll actually be able to figure out _how_ to edit the darn thing in the way you want. and _that_ is the real topic at hand here... these semantic games do nothing but cloud the discussion. > A good text editor can clean out all of the tags > with a simple regular expression like "<.*[^>]*>". ok, well at least now you're starting to talk about _issues_. but of course, you're glossing over the reality even here. the inference you are trying to get us to make is that "cleaning out all the tags" will convert an x.m.l. file into a plain-text file, magically. it won't. not in all cases anyway. not unless the x.m.l. file was created -- carefully -- with that specific conversion in mind. i've been writing a separate post that will give details how this careful consideration and crafting must be done. (some hints: whitespace, quotemarks, and tables.) > Script languages like perl, python, ruby or any other language > likely to come down the pike will be able to process XML and > convert it into whatever comes along in the future. it's telling how all of the hype about x.m.l. is in the present-tense, but when you focus down to particulars, it moves to future-tense. pay attention to this, lurkers! it's a sure sign of vapor-ware! > Very few applications render XML directly > (except perhaps word processors), > everyone else converts it into html, pdf > or other formats for display. ask yourself why this is the case. the answer is interesting. > SGML (XML's older sister) has been around for, what, > twenty years or more? And all SGML documents are > easily converted into XML. XML is simplier and > designed to be around as an archive format > for far longer than that. in its day, s.g.m.l. made all the same promises as x.m.l. does now. it couldn't keep them, so s.g.m.l. people had to invent a variant, so they could regenerate all their hype from scratch and reuse it. and sure enough, the public is gullible enough to believe it all again. of course, the same difficulties that thwarted s.g.m.l. back in the day -- sabotaging all their hype -- will return and bite x.m.l. in the butt. but by the time we figure out how we've been had this time around, all the x.m.l. proponents will have carted off their consultant cash... > Most people will never know about the master version in XML, > they only will see the file formats they use to read books. they'll "know about" that x.m.l. version indirectly; it will be the reason their books are so expensive. due to all that cash those consultants carted away. > XML is only a long term and safe archive format hype and marketing. > Once you understand that XML is just plain text, > you can use any software for processing text to work with it. you can save a spreadsheet in "plain-text" form too, and then "use any software for processing" that too. but you're going to find yourself coming up short. likewise when working with an x.m.l. file in a plain-text editor; yes, it can be done, but you will find yourself coming up short. but x.m.l. people will continue telling us this untruth, because they want us to believe that x.m.l. is really simple. but it's not. > As long as there is a text editor, > an XML documment will never be lost. of course, if it ain't human-readable in that form, it doesn't really matter if it "will never be lost". it won't need to be "lost" once it has been "tossed"... *** i will repeat: make x.m.l. work if you want us to respect it. don't come and _tell_ us how wonderful it will be; show us. the proof is in the pudding. not in the hype and marketing. -bowerbird

7 9