jim said:
You are only interested in wasting other people's time.
jim, i think it's quite amusing, and very interesting, to be reminded why i stopped talking to you at all... because you act so idiotically some times. actually, make that _most_ of the time. so even when you make good points -- and you do, at times, make good points -- it's still not worthwhile to step through the manure of your obstacle-course... the new version of your text that you created there doesn't do _me_ any good. but it does lots for _you_. so i didn't "waste" your time. it's the exact opposite. to the contrary, i had you engage in a little task that upped the value _considerably_ for your pg#32325... (at least for the people who can locate your new file, and know that it has value in relation to pg#32325.) because now your "huck" can be directly compared to a scan-set archive.org essentially makes "canonical", by virtue of its being known and available world-wide. in comparison, the pg-rewrapped version of that text -- albeit otherwise exactly the same -- is _worthless._ so you didn't "waste" your time. you spent it _wisely_.
I seem to remember Marcello expressed an interest in it [if only like BB to tear down the efforts of other]
again, jim, stop with the idiotic actions/expressions. because, you know, if you do _enough_ idiotic things, people will start to _call_ you an idiot. for good reason. because only an idiot will do idiotic things _repeatedly._ i try to avoid such an attribution, because it is based on your _personality_, rather than your _actions_ -- like christians say, "hate the sin, but love the sinner" -- but you know that when you persist, it's difficult... so... i am certainly not "tearing down your efforts"... indeed, i'm just about the only person here who is making any argument that an unwrapper is useful.
for simple tasks such as unwrapping Huck it takes literally about two seconds when run on a slow machine
unwrapping could take two hours, and still be worthwhile. since it could save people about twenty hours in proofing. (and since we're talking about two hours for the computer, while we are off having a long lunch or a nice dinner, then it's merely a good excuse for a long lunch or a nice dinner.)
great. except that doesn't have any pagebreaks in it. makes it hard to check a line of text with the pagescan if you don't know what page the line of text occurs on... so, you know, you missed the whole point of the exercise.
I leave you to do the pagebreaks,
why would i do them? i'm not interested in your e-book.
I leave you to do the pagebreaks, if you were actually really interested, which you aren't.
i'm not interested in making your e-book more valuable. why would i be? i'm interested in the general question of what p.g. needs to do to make its e-books valuable enough to care about. but any particular book? well, not so much. especially not your version of "huck", since i already have _my_ version of "huck", which i know is the superior one... remember? i found a bunch of italics you had missed?
The point being that you keep trying to claim that wrapping/unwrapping is some kind of impediment.
i don't need to "claim" there is value in the ability to verify some digital text by comparing it to the relevant pagescan in a manner that is as direct as possible. that's _obvious_. the benefit derived from such functionality is clear and huge. only idiots would try to contest the worth of that capability. and yes, without any shred of doubt _whatsoever,_ having rewrapped text does indeed hinder such direct comparison. so, again, only an idiot would ever question that assertion. now, whether unwrapping can be done in such a way that it is so quick-and-easy that it fails to be any "impediment", i'm wide open to being convinced of that. i _hope_ it's true. but i've spent enough time unwrapping text that i'm skeptical you have made it quick-and-easy enough for "anyone" to do. but again, i _hope_ you have. i _want_ to believe you. i do. still, you haven't yet shown that to us. you've shown us that _you_ can do it. not that _anyone_ can. don't get me wrong. it's a great first-step. and it provides fantastic promise that we _could_ make it easy for anyone... but it's only the first step of the journey, not the end-point. you need to have other people do it, and say "it was easy", if you want to be convincing with your assertion that it's so. as it is, you have left much of your process enshrouded. we know that one of your files was the p.g. text. but what was the file that gave you the linebreaks? what kind of prep did you need to do to these files? (as a for-instance, did you delete the p.g. legalese?) how long did prep take? the entire process? and so on. give us the answers to these types of questions, jim, and have someone else do it, so we can hear their answers...
The point being that you keep trying to claim that wrapping/unwrapping is some kind of impediment.
it _is_. anything that gets in the way is an impediment. show us that you can _remove_ that impediment easily.
The point being that you keep trying to claim that wrapping/unwrapping is some kind of impediment. It isn't. Neither are pagebreaks, obviously, because if one can put back in the original whitespace known as "linebreaks" then it is even more trivial to put back original whitespace known as "pagebreaks"
and again, if it's _trivial_, then why didn't you do it?
which your workflow is interested am, and I am not.
if you're uninterested in creating the best workflow, what are you even doing in this conversation at all?
You are only interested in wasting other people's time.
the only waste of time that's happening here, now, is the one where i'm wasting my time responding to you. if you want to be productive, jim, you can do any of these: 1. restore the pagebreaks to the file you just made. 2. document the process you used to unwrap "huck". 3. write up a manual for your unwrapping program. 4. publicize your unwrapping program to the world. 5. rewrite your unwrapping program as a web-app. 6. describe the pseudo-code used in your program. and again, jim, just so i don't have to say it -- again! -- in my _next_ reply to you, should i be stupid enough to disregard the task of extraction from the adkins tar-pit, i know fully well that it's _possible_ to do unwrapping... i have done it, myself, countless times. i also know that the task can be relatively simple (emphasize "relatively"), because sometimes i have been able to make it simple... (i also know that sometimes it can be a bear.) _further_, i ascribe value to unwrapping, and will _welcome_ a tool that makes the task more quick and easy and transparent. i care about this; i spend my _own_ time on these matters. i may be the _only_ person on this list who cares about it. so don't take the stupid route of arguing these points, jim. because i don't have the patience to let you waste my time. if you want to do any of the 6 things above, then have at it. otherwise, opt out. -bowerbird