- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

now imagine it's 2012
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Jan '12

25 Jan '12

ok, now imagine it's 2012. you're not really gonna follow the same people who have been leading you down the completely-wrong path ever since 2004. are you? no, no, surely they don't think you're _that_ stupid... do they? -bowerbird

2 1

but somebody else should tell him
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Jan '12

25 Jan '12

so... it's been three weeks already... but somebody else should tell him... -bowerbird

1 0

(no subject)
by Jim Adcock 25 Jan '12

25 Jan '12

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Producing epub ready HTML
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Jan '12

25 Jan '12

the comic chaotic confusion of a compact car containing clowns who constantly keep on coming has always been the emblematic enduring image reflecting the endless amusement of the circus... --bowerbird

1 0

imagine the year is 2004
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Jan '12

25 Jan '12

al said: > It'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, steps up yes indeed. but let's take a look back... *** imagine the year is 2004. p.g. just hit the magic 10,000. and bowerbird comes along telling you that you can use light-markup as your "master" to generate other formats. instead of throwing rocks at him, you actually listen, and even try it out, and -- lo and behold -- it actually _works_. from then on, the library is powerful and state-of-the-art. none of your people have to waste any of their time making .html versions, because that's done for them automatically... same with the .pdf versions, which were big in the early days, and various other formats which people wanted at some time. and because p.g. is the go-to source for _all_ of the formats, there's no niche for the repackagers to get a toe in the field... especially as the conversions become extremely well-honed. this means when google and internet archive start scanning, project gutenberg is the clear leader, so they both fall in line, because hey, there's no need to "fix it" since it ain't "broken", meaning those projects end up with very different workflows, which prioritize text over scans, and exalt cleaned-up o.c.r. moreover, when amazon decides to get in the game big-time, with the .mobi format they bought, p.g. is the place which has "been there, done that" all along, so p.g. remains out in front. plus, everyone knows -- they can see it with their own eyes -- that a plain-text format can still provide us with e-books that are beautiful, functional, and powerful, so there is no need to use clunky formats like .html or .xhtml or .epub or .whatever. further, since e-book authoring is a breeze -- because p.g. has paved the way to show how simple it can be -- self-publishing takes off sooner, so the money-grubbing corporate publishers go down faster, and we get a jump-start on a new cultural era. it's win-win for everyone, with p.g. up at the head of the class. that's what _could_ have happened. what happened instead is that many people here were stupid, and stubborn, and mean enough to form an attack-pack, and the result is a confused mess which persists to this very day... so i really hope you people -- and you know who you are! -- are proud of yourselves. because you messed up really badly. -bowerbird

1 0

whitewashers don't have to put up with real solutions
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 24 Jan '12

24 Jan '12

someone nested in several layers of quotes said: > Is this an exclusive 'or' or an inclusive 'or'? to which there is only one good reply: who's on first! *** al said: > Much of PG's assorted FAQs > might be candidates for update, but > the bulk of them have stood the test of time. > The questions are, who's going to update them, > how much argument from the cheap seats is going > to ensue, and since two of the three main complainers > in this forum don't submit anything anyway, > why should any updater put up with those complaints? hey wait, al, am i one of those "three main complainers"? if so, mr. haines, am i one of the two who "don't submit"? because, technically, i _have_ actually made a submission. moreover, i don't think i've ever lodged a complaint about a _f.a.q._, because i'm not sure what the point would be... and -- you know, i do really hate to be a nitpicker, but -- i think it's important to note that i don't just "complain", i also offer an _alternative_ that will _solve_the_problem_. finally, _i_prove_it_works,_right_in_front_of_your_face._ too bad that you'd usually stopped listening much earlier -- meaning you often miss the fact that proof is given -- because why should you "put up with those complaints"? -bowerbird p.s. that's what i'm asking! who's on first? p.p.s. yes! p.p.p.s. the cyberarchaeologists will have a field day with this thread. i swear they will laugh for a week and a half! i mean the _inclusive_ "and" when i say "week and a half".

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Producing epub ready HTML
by hmonroe.pglaf＠huntermonroe.com 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

There is a golden opportunity here for someone to create an automated tool to assess the use/misuse of HTML which PG could use to screen submissions--see my earlier post with some simple tests written in Perl. I would be happy to host development of the tool under the Guiguts sourceforge project. Also badly needed is an update of gutcheck the corresponding tool to evalute .txt submissions--it has not been changed since 2005 and cannot even count the number of characters per line if the line contains Unicode. Provide me with your sourceforge ID and I will give your access rights. If it were up to me I would write these tools in Perl not C (since Guiguts is in Perl), or it could be an enhancement to HTML Tidy but my only request is that the errors/warnings generated look like "linenum:columnnum This line is wrong: <h1>Chapter</h2>" (this allows Guiguts users to double click on an error report to jump to the errors). Guiguts has a "Check All" button which runs W3C validation, W! 3C CSS check, Link Check, HTML Tidy, Image Check, and the rudimentary Epub Friendly check I sent earlier--perhaps these could be part of an HTMLGutcheck tool. I could bundle the tools with Guiguts so they would reach a broad audience even if PG does not immediately adopt them. Hunter > Why aren't WWers send back projects that include destructive layout > tagging, or don't include important structural tagging? I can think of any > number of reasons for rejection that are less disruptive to the reader's > satisfaction. Because we have automated checks for validity and good spelling. We don't have automated checks for (mis-) use of HTML for layout. If we had some sort of automated and relatively unambiguous checks for such things, I'm sure that many submitters would strive to comply. -- Greg

4 6

Re: [gutvol-d] http://edwardbetts.com/correct
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

i knew, when this came out a few months back, that i had put up a similar interface a long time ago, but i couldn't track it down quickly, so i forgot about it... but i just stumbled across it again. it was april 2010: > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/private/gutvol-d/2010-April/date.html the subject is "a horizontal proofing interface, line by line", and the first post in the thread was made on april 1, 2010: > http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/private/gutvol-d/2010-April/006389.html the demo itself is here: > http://z-m-l.com/go/lines/pagelines.html this is more the "smoothreading" interface, where a person just clicks a button if a line has a mistake; an administrator gets the report and fixes the error. -bowerbird

1 0

i can't ignore the ignorance any more
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

greg said: > poor results with auto-conversion from > HTML to other formats (epub and mobi, > among others): this is often due to choices > that producers make about using HTML to > impact layout, rather than just structure. > Enough said. well, i guess that might be "enough said" if your sole objective is to displace blame. but from other perspectives, it's just lame. and overall, it's clearly a short-sighted take. it conveniently ignores your own culpability in _creating_ this situation as it now exists... further, it implies you couldn't make anything of substance with the input you get even now. and, in what might be its _most_ bizarre twist, it treats producers as a mysterious "black-box", when they are actually live humans with whom you _could_ engage in productive conversation... but, of course, that would require you to _listen_. *** don said: > I think there are plenty of producers > who don't understand the distinction. > Why aren't WWers send back projects > that include destructive layout tagging, or > don't include important structural tagging? while not overly simplistic, this will not work, for both technical _and_ personnel reasons... there are too many ways to express structure in .html, so an omnibus converter is _thorny_. to make it bake, you must constrain the range. thus emerges the second problem: personnel. d.p. postprocessors were recruited with a lure of "you can make the book look like you like." indeed, that is the best (only?) reward they get. most have adopted the attitude that their goal is to make their .html look like the paper-book. (albeit not completely, and it's very fascinating to see which factors they do and do not honor; but their intent, for the most part, is to clone.) they also each developed an idiosyncratic style, and being a "snowflake" is important to them... so you'll never be able to make 'em robots now. and, unlike greg, who is now acting like this difficulty is something that was "inevitable", i was informing all of you, all along, that this would eventually bite all of you in the butt... but you didn't want to take your head out of it. plus you've never valued consistency correctly. so, i will say it again, directly: _i_told_you_so._ and i was right. and you were wrong. as usual. *** just because someone might find it interesting, this is the issue which got me banned from d.p. i was telling the postprocessors their snowflakes would eventually get discarded as "unworkable" -- they'd been told their .html would be at p.g. "forever", and that was a huge recruiting point, as some people thought it made 'em immortal -- so i was freaking out juliet to the banning stage. and the after-effects linger. part of the reason this issue causes so much resentment at d.p. is precisely because it questions that "immortality", by exposing the weakness of the .html versions. so there is a reluctance to face the fact directly... *** as i said up above, though, the strangest thing about this whole "debate", whenever it arises, is that producers are treated like a "black-box", which cannot be understood, let alone affected. this is bizarre. if you wanna understand these people, it's easy. they are cogent individuals who actively discuss these very issues, in public, on the d.p. forums... if you want to know what they're doing, and why they are doing it, and what they think about it all, all you have to do is go and read what they write. and let me tell you, their discussions are a _lot_ better -- smarter, well-rounded, nuanced, etc. -- than the ones which you people have here. really. plus, if you need, you can ask 'em questions, and they'll give you their answers, probably promptly. that's right, this is a black-box that can talk back! i have read these forums, and i can tell you that these producers are more than willing to give you what you want, _provided_ they get what they want. because -- after all -- they _are_ doing the work... they're not gonna sacrifice getting what they want just so you'll get what you want... that'd be stupid. but they've bent over backwards to try to give you what you want. so it's your turn to be reasonable. and let me tell you, the "make them do it my way" philosophy which marcello and lee and jim exhibit _won't_ get you what you want. in a million years. but here's a tip. before going over there for dialog, decide amongst yourselves what it is that you want. because one big reason they are frustrated with you is that you don't really have any idea what you want. *** so, is there anything which can be done here? well, d'uh, yeah, just like i have said all along... you can make some straightforward changes to the text version you require, and then use that as your master format. voila, bingo, regardez. you could still let people submit "snowflakes", you just wouldn't use them for the conversions. but you've ignored that advice a thousand times. so i expect that you will ignore it once again, eh? -bowerbird

1 0

Ownership in E-readers and Tablets doubles over the Xmas season, now at 29%
by Jim Adcock 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/E-readers-and-tablets.aspx

1 0