- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book
by Joshua Hutchinson 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Well, I use CSS to allow the user to switch between showing page numbers and not showing page numbers on the fly. In fact, both CSS style sheets are embedded within the main HTML file so that extra files are unnecessary. Here is a link to a Bay State Monthly issue that uses this feature... http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/3/7/6/13761/13761-h/13761-h.htm In Mozilla-based browsers, you can switch between the style sheets very easily by clicking the icon in the lower left corner of the browser window. The default setting is NOT to show the page numbers, since the majority of people could care less how the original paper version was numbered. But for those that WANT to know, clicking the Original Page Numbers style will have all the original page numbers appear in the margin. Now Internet Explorer doesn't seem to have a way to switch styles on the fly, which is a shame, but it just defaults to not showing the page numbers. The page numbers are still in the HTML source, though, so someone that needs it can still get to the information is they absolutely had to. I am *hoping* that when the switch to XML/TEI happens in the future, this markup will transition fairly easily, too. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Starner" <shalesller(a)writeme.com> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:58:44 -0800 > > Karl Eichwalder writes: > > It is easy to solve this issue using different CSS stylesheets. > > I have three problems with using CSS. First, and most fundamental, > if you want to turn page numbers and line numbers on and off, and > offer a choice of 5 different background colors, you need 20 different > CSS options. Another feature will at least double the number of files. > > Secondly, it doesn't work on many web browsers, and I don't think > that lynx and friends have any intent of ever supporting CSS. > > Lastly, it's never struck me as particularly user-friendly. If you > can point me to a place where it's actually used and it's easy to > change without being a computer science major, I'd appreciate it. > -- > ___________________________________________________________ > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d >

4 3

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Posting TEI
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

marcello said: > Maybe the request is just that: > reasonable to *you* and nobody else. yeah, right... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Posting TEI
by Joshua Hutchinson 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

----- Original Message ----- From: Marcello Perathoner <marcello(a)perathoner.de> > > Jim Tinsley wrote: > > > Nobody has an objection to valid TEI texts, but valid TEI texts alone > > _are not enough_. An XML file that cannot be read (by an actual human) > > is as useful as a lock with no key. > > Not so. Having a TEI text posted would enable third-party developers to > come up with their own converter solutions eve if we didn't get very far > with ours. There are a lot of people around who already convert the text > files into other formats. Their jobs would get much easier. I'm hoping Jim (or someone else) can clear up something for me. If I create a TEI document, use it to create a regular 8-bit ASCII file and valid HTML file, then submit all three to the whitewashers ... will they post all three (assuming the ASCII file clears GutCheck and the HTML clears the W3C validator)? If not, why not? If yes, why can't this be the "incremental" development that Marcello was alluded to? Please, this is not attacking anybody's stance. I'm really just trying to understand the positions/policies here. Josh

3 2

Re: [gutvol-d] Re: jeroen's even-handed analysis
by D. Starner 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Steve Thomas writes: > As usual, people have missed the point of the original post > (Anne's) which was that we need to remember the *user* -- that > guy in Africa with only 2 hours of electricity each day. I'm not spending as much time as I do with PG for him. I seriously doubt that he's interested in Ossian in Germany or Selections from Early Middle English. My target user is a scholar, whether a kid in high school, or a college student or professor or other person who may not have or may not be interested in waiting on interlibrary loan. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Joshua Hutchinson 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

Let me assure you. NONE of us (not even bowerbird) is expecting Joe Sixpack to have the conversion tools loaded on his computer. Whether the eventual process will have the whitewashers creating the TXT and HTML files from XML or the server building them on the fly, no one wants that burden to fall on the reader. There will always be plain text files available. Even the most hardened XML-phile among us isn't going to take that away. (Even if they refuse to ever actually read a text in plain-ascii format! ;) ) Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: Gutenberg9443(a)aol.com Please. I am not trying to start a flame war. I detest flame wars. I am simply returning, again and again, to Michael Hart's original vision. No matter what ELSE we do to the texts, we are betraying what makes PG special if we require everybody to have this program or that program which probably won't run on most obsolete or obsolescent computers.

2 1

re: Re: [gutvol-d] re: coming to michael doorstep with hat in hand
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

joshua said: > If nothing else, and I've said this before, bowerbird is a very good troll. just can't help but blame me for your own bad behavior, can you... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: Re: [gutvol-d] press releases and puke on a reporter's shoes
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

that's all wonderful to hear, jon, congratulations! the world needs a good e-book viewer-program. (now don't forget the authoring-tool as well!) :+) -bowerbird

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] jeroen's even-handed analysis
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

joshua said: > Come on back out, Anne. It's just that > everyone gets so worked up when bowerbird is around > that they start snapping at everything. that deal, of course, includes talking about me in posts that you address to other people too... -bowerbird

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Posting TEI
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

joshua said: > (Everyone but bowerbird... > don't even bother to respond, please... > I'm trying to actually get something going i'm all in favor of actually getting something going. as far as not "bothering" to respond, if you'll do the same for me, it's a deal. -bowerbird

1 0

re: Re: [gutvol-d] Re: aspects of a well-done e-book
by D. Starner 21 Oct '04

21 Oct '04

"David A. Desrosiers" writes: > Just because I support Mozilla, does not mean I do NOT support > MSIE. That being said, if my code works in 13 browsers, and fails in > MSIE, my code is not the problem. I do, however, refuse to add "hacks" > to get MSIE to do what it should be doing anyway... following the > standards. If your job is to build a castle in a swamp, you don't get to blame the fact that the castle sinks into the swamp on the fact that the swamp doesn't follow standards. In real life, MSIE is a defacto standard, and not fixing your code to work with it is being an ideological pain in the ass that doesn't like to work with reality. I don't have an option which browser to use. Many other people just don't care enough about computers and your causes to switch. Let's support our users as they come, and not ignore them because they aren't interested in computers. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

4 3