On 2012-09-24, David Starner wrote:
The value of scans is in their unequivocal nature. Once we've started editing the scans, then it's just another modern volunteer edition. I see no reason not to list our changes in an external text file.
I'm not particularly wedded to this detail. If everyone prefers a companion file approach then that is fine by me.
I fail to see why an inferior format solves anything. And if I'm going to be start my work from the (X)HTML/TEI/RST/LaTeX/ZML edition instead of RTT, it's useless.
I can see that I'm not going to convince you of the value of an RTT. If you want to do a version of a book that I have done a derivative for, you will have an RTT available to you. You will also have a LaTeX version and even an MS if you really do want to redo the OCR. Feel free to use whatever works best for you. If I want to do a derivative of a book you've done, depending on what you've done I may be able to strip it back to an RTT and go from there, in which case an RTT will become available for that book as well. 97.5% of PG books will, of course, never have an RTT, so it is not like it will be mandatory. We seem to all agree about the value of an MS, with or without the RTT, so let's focus on that. Cheers Jon