On 11/12/2011 11:46 AM, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
well, one of us is confused, that's for sure...
Umm, yes, that would be you.
_i_ thought we were talking about a system that could be used by an entity like d.p. to do book-digitization,
No, that's a different thread. We all know that the antiquated AOL software you use has some difficultly tracking discussion threads (if it can do it at all), so your confusion is somewhat understandable. I'm not going back and review all the messages in this thread but let me see if I can clarify things. This current (sub-)thread began when I posted a message explaining that I choose not to try and develop an HTML editor for ePubEditor because user preferences of correct editors tend to vary widely and border on religious convictions. I have no interest in getting into the middle of a religious war. Mr. Adcock and Mr. Kretz both promptly illustrated my point by suggesting different alternatives (yet other alternatives have since surfaced); Mr. Kretz's suggestion was to use the WordPress.blog engine (I have no idea how I could interface to /that/ editor from inside ePubEditor, although I suspect he was recommending WordPress as a stand-alone editor, not integrated into ePubEditor). Mr. Kretz has gone on to try and explain the functioning of WordPress in light of your apparent lack of comprehension, but at no point in this conversation did Mr. Kretz suggest that WordPress should be adopted by Distributed Proofreaders as part of it's work-flow or standard tools, nor, for that matter, has anyone else. In fact, DP has not been part of this conversation until you brought it up just now. In my original post I also noted that the results of the Internet Archive's "fromabbyy.php" script was more valuable than I had originally thought. Mr. Buie responded with a link to a project by Open Library's Edward Betts that possibly (although not necessarily) used those same results to match a line of HTML with an image of that same line of text in the original scan. Mr. Traverso is the one that started a second (sub-)thread suggesting that Mr. Betts' process might be useful to Distributed Proofreader's proofreading process, and Mr. Perathoner and Mr. Adcock continued the conversation on variations of /that/ theme. You are apparently conflating the two discussions, attributing to Mr. Kretz suggestions that not only he has never made in this conversation, but that /no one/ has made.
with a suggestion wordpress would do the .html/.css. in other words, we put in .text, and get out .html/.css.
Again, until now this discussion has never suggested anything to do with the conversion of Just Bare text to HTML text. I understand that this is the topic you /want/ us to be discussing, but it's not the topic we /have been/ discussing. Now, I have no particular objection to discussion threads evolving to take up related issues; that's part of the useful dynamic of discussion lists. So unlike some I have seen on this list I'm not going to say "this is my thread, if you want to talk about enhancing Just Bare text by using some heuristics go start your own thread." However, I do think it is extrememly rude to criticize people simply for talking about the things that interest them instead of the things that interest /you/.