keith said:
>   True enough. Yet, the arguement stands.

perhaps you didn't catch my entire gist.

_of_course_ one needs to allow for the possibility of
editing either version, since both might be incorrect.

as i pointed out, my tool (which supports jim's tool)
does exactly that.


>   At least in my opinion. The trivial cases are
>   easy to handle, yet it is always the RARE cases
>   where tools can shine and set themselves
>   apart from the rest.

but jim's methodology -- where his tool simply
_marks_ the differences after which a person uses
a reg-ex editor to actually _make_the_changes_ --
handles neither the rare cases nor the trivial well.

whereas my tool-in-support-of-his handles both,
equally well.

a reg-ex editor, by requiring manual editing even
in the "trivial" cases, handles neither trivial nor rare
very well, in my opinion.

my tool-in-support-of-his makes the "trivial" cases,
which are by far the most common, trivial to handle,
with a mere button-click or keypress.  and the user
only has to do manual editing in the rare case, where
it simply cannot be avoided.


>   Actually, both methods are kind of primitive
>   from a Human Interface standpoint.

i always appreciate it when someone analyzes my tools.

so let's see what you have to say here, keith.


>   a better way would be having
>   two windows containing two or more lines
>   above and below the diff and marking each. 

a little bit of context can help elucidate the difference.
too much context can bury it, depending on the display.
i'd have to see exactly what you mean in order to decide.

in my-tool-in-support-of-jim's tool, the change-window
is a movable modal, so people can simply look back at the
main window if they need to see more than 1 line of context.

(i could also put multiple content lines in the top box of the
change-window, if feedback indicated people wanted them.)


>   If you ever work with critical editions
>   you will understand the cavet of this method.

if it impossible for you to explain in words?


>   The changes can then be made in a third.

again, not sure what you really mean here...


>   All can be enhanced with colors and other neat features.

you can always "enhance" anything with "other neat features".
the hard part is _coming_up_ with those "other neat features".

***

we should remember that my tool-in-support-of-jim's tool
isn't how _i_ would do the job.  i was just trying to show how
to make his tool work better.  i've shown how i do the job...

here's how i showed diffs with gardner's book, on 23 february:
>   http://z-m-l.com/go/gardn/gardn-hybrid6.html

that laid out the entire book, with diffs in different colors...

here's a simple reworking of that file, which i just posted:
>   http://z-m-l.com/go/gardn/gardn-hybrid7.html

this version of the file lets you click a link to see each scan,
and gives you radio-buttons where you can select the correct
alternative for each diff.  (or choose neither if both are wrong.)

this is how i would approach this task with an _online_ thrust,
working in a collaborative manner.  but i'd probably prefer to
do it with an _offline_ app instead, since that's more efficient.

-bowerbird