There are actually three problems below:

1) the original TOC has no true menaing in an

digital version. At least in the sense of the

original text, unless we have a 1 to 1 representation.

Of course if there is one one should adjust accordingly.

The problem is what to do about the pages numbers if

2) a user define TOC must be identifiable as just that.

it actually does not matter where it goes! Yet, see 3

3) certain e-book formats require a "TOC"

a) do we use the original, yes.

do we leave the original in place, too, or

or place a transcribers note that it has been

b) the format has generally a requirement for its placement.

c) any user defined should be this "TOC"

of course there might be reasons to do it differently,

yet I can not think of any reason to do it.

P.S. Who are you citing?????

Am 08.12.2011 um 21:40 schrieb James Adcock:

[snip, snip]

12. the table-of-contents must be the second section.

A requirement to place TOC at a specific location would clearly seem to be
an error. If original author/pub chose to place TOC in an "unusual"
location still it would seem sensible to retain that location. Conversely,
if the original author/pub chose NOT to implement a TOC but the PG volunteer
transcriber feels a dying need to implement a TOC in spite of the original
author's intent, then the logical place to put the TOC would seem to be at
the very beginning of the transcription, prior to the actual transcription,
where the transcriber can make it clear that the TOC has been added by the
transcriber for the convenience of readers trying to navigate the
transcription on electronic devices, and that such a TOC *does not* in fact
represent part of the work being transcribed. The transcriber can also
highlight this fact by implementing the TOC in a non-matching choice of
font.