Hoi Karen, As you most likely know PG was originally intended to be a repository. Furthermore, it was believed that the best format for longevity was the "Plain Vanilla Text". This was the sole master format. Gradually, technological advances open the door of how people read books digitally. it was noticed that the "Plain Vanilla Texts" was sub optimal from point of view that these new technologies could could produce more appealing output. So DP was sun off. From that day on there has been much debate about master formats. PG policy was to let the contributors a fear hand, but that is a very bad idea, as PG did and does not expect everything. I PG wanted to it could stick by its original purpose and be an archival repository and expect a wide range of of formats. It would not be that hard to administer and offer access. But, then you would have tons of files and texts for all kinds of devices and texts most likely texts strictly for just one device. That is not in line with the philosophy of PG. the texts are to be available to a large(if not all) portion of the public. So the idea of a master format that accommodates most was born. What was not done was properly design such a format to fit the task it was(is) to have. the quick and dirty road was chosen. Any programmer knows that this approach creates quick and at first acceptable results. The problem crop when things need to be changed. THAT IS THE PRESENT DAY SITUATION. What is truly , as you mention, so form of standardization. The problem at PG is that there are now true standards to adhere that would support a master format. We do need even constrain contributors to the master format all that is need is that the constrain their format information to a standard. Then the contributions can easily converted to the master format. The master format can be used to distribute to the rest. YES, I can hear all the hand crafters and artists. Yet, you gals and girls forget PG was never dedicated to creating artistic works. What PG is dedicated to is offering etexts in an expectable quality for most. PG is not a publishing has as some come to think of it. PG is a repository and it is not PGs responsibility to offer the etexts therein in any particular format. PG is trying to facilitate as broad base of technologies which is a lot of hard work. I believe PG is getting some of the best mileage out of their resources. Sure the could get more, but it is about time we try to help them do this by developing a mark up standard for etexts and ebooks. STOP, SCREAMING PEOPLE. I am not talking about a particular implementation. More in an upcomming thread "A New Approach" regards Keith. Am 04.02.2012 um 21:57 schrieb Karen Lofstrom:
I'm seeing two tendencies here. Some people want a disciplined, organized collection, with one/a few master formats, better metadata and error correction. Some people want PG to follow Michael Hart's dream of big collection, no rules, everything is welcome, do your own thing.
As a researcher and former academic, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the former vision. I can't but see the latter camp as something like many self-publishers: people who want THEIR book released THEIR way, with no gatekeepers barring entry.
But perhaps PG could accommodate both camps by distinguishing between PG-standard texts (generated from a master format, corrected and re-generated as necessary) and PG-alternative texts (hand-tweaked for particular e-readers, less popular formats, older versions, etc.) Search results could generate standard texts on top, alternative texts in separate category. Everything to have release dates, so that users could see which were the earlier versions and how recently the text had been corrected or updated. Users would have a way to judge the reliability of the text.
If volunteers who submit alternative texts want to do error correction themselves, keeping their version in sync with the standard text, fine. But I don't think that PG should be stuck with that role. It would be enough work just to keep the standard texts updated.
There would have to be SOME rules for the alternative texts, but they could be much less stringent than the rules for the standard texts.
Right now, many of PG's texts would only qualify as alternative texts. But that would be OK. They would be placeholders, so that users could read something while standard texts were being prepared.
-- Karen Lofstrom _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d