On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:28:13PM +0100, Jon Hurst wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 2012-09-24, Greg Newby wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Jon Hurst wrote:
... The value in the MS is in its unequivocal nature. It says: "After much discussion amongst knowledgeable people, this, and only this, is what we at PG consider to be a version of this book. Everything else we publish is a derivation of this. If they don't match this, they are in error."
This is exactly opposite the PG policy. We specificaly do NOT adhere to any print edition. (That is part of why you will find it really hard to find a matching print source for many PG eBooks.)
Ah.... that does rather torpedo the scheme. The MS is de facto what I described. The RTT would be based on it, and the derivatives would be based on the RTT, one way or another. Therefore the final ebooks _would_ all adhere to the print edition that the MS was sourced from, or be incorrect and need fixing. The whole scheme, unless I am misunderstanding something, would therefore appear to be the exact opposite of PG policy. Is this a correct interpretation?
No. Anyone who submits an eBook is welcome to have it adhere to a particular printed copy, and in fact most do. The mistake was in thinking that PG policy is that it *must* adhere, or that any corrections must adhere to the original printed text. I don't think anything in PG practice or policy reduces the value of having a set of reference images. The only inconsistency would be in thinking that the eBook that PG distributes will (must) be completely consistent with those images. It doesn't need to be, and in practice never is (i.e., minimally there are rewrapped paragraphs and de-hyphenation, and a different font). -- Greg