----- Original Message ----- From: "William Flis" <flis@detk.com> To: <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:35 PM Subject: [gutvol-d] Unicode versions?
I prepared ("postprocessed" at Distributed Proofreaders) also a Unicode (UTF-8) version of this book, but it doesn't seem to have made it to posting at PG. The UTF-8 elements were all pronunciation symbols, which one might expect to be important in such a book. I'm currently working on another volume in this series, with similar symbols. I've also been working on a book on Native American sign language, which contains a good number of special symbols used in transcribing the NA spoken languages, also requiring UTF-8.
So my first question is, did my Unicode version just get lost somewhere? (I usually upload directly to PG but submitted this one the long way around through DP's "Post-Processing Verification" system so someone else would take a look at it, since it was my first attempt at Unicode.)
Second, if not, are Unicode versions welcome?
Bill Flis
Society for Pure English, Tract 2, on English Homophones, Robert Bridges 14227 [Link: http://www.gutenberg.net/1/4/2/2/14227 ] [Files: 14227.txt; 14227-8.txt; 14227-h.htm]
Hi Bill, Unicode is very welcome. Here is the note I sent to Frank this morning and should have sent a copy to you. Hi Frank, I have been toying with this file for several days. The original problem was your provision of two html files one Latin-1 and one Unicode. We can only post one html file in the directory for the eBook. There is one way around this (and the one I was thinking of trying) which is to make a main html file with a links to the two html files you provided. However this went down the drain when I found the utf-8 html file has an invalid CSS statement (see the attached W3C CSS validation report). So I elected to post the valid Latin-1 html file and the text file alone. If you object to my approach kindly provide a file such as I suggested above with links to both html files and be sure that all the html files validate on all three W3C checks. Thanks, David PS. I sent Frank a copy of the CSS validator report but no longer have it--something about not allowing content in the prolog which I did not understand. DW
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d