except that some of that "verbiage" was people asking just how exactly your program differs from one that they've been using all along. don't you wanna tell 'em?
You are attacking my reply re attaching licensing terms by attaching it to unrelated discussions.
On Vim I type: :/[{|}]/ Which highlights the edits and takes me to the next set of edits
but that selects both the options, and the surrounding characters.
that's not really what you want -- what _most_people_ would want.
and it involves typing. either typing or a lot of delicate deleting. both of which increase the probability that errors are introduced.
Again, you are assuming the problem presupposes a solution which is one of "Choose A" or "Choose B". If you use the tool on other than trivial problems you will find out that life is not that simple, and that frequently both A and B have some degree of errors that need to be corrected and/or merged to get you where you want to go. If one wanted to make a graphical tool to do this you would not only need the "Choose A" and "Choose B" options but "Edit in Context while displaying a copy of the original scanned page" and if one wants to make that kind of tool one would be better off to put the time and effort into figuring out a tool to display a scanned page a bit-mapped line at a time comparing to the OCR text as opposed to the DP current approach of displaying a bit-mapped page at a time compared to a OCR page at a time. And then one would also have to tackle the problem of how one wants to deal with the portability issues of the differing graphics systems on different people's computers. And one would have to build in an editing capability on par with the non-integrated editors that people currently choose to use and/or offer emulation of those editors in your editor offering. These WOULD be good issues to tackle, I just don't feel like I am the right person to tackle these problems. In practice, using pgdiff with Vim I find personally to be MUCH easier, less painful, and more productive than the DP approach, which is why I offer it for people to choose from. You still need to compare to the page scans.
in the vast majority of cases (96%) where there is a difference between the two versions, _one_ of the versions is _correct_...
This is not my experience, but in any case it should be obvious that the results are HIGHLY dependent on what kind of texts and OCRs you are working on.
but, you know, if some users like _your_ display better, _fine!_ :+)
More importantly, since I post my code and it is reasonably portable without a lot of rigmarole and without stack hacks like wdiff people can edit it and put it into their choice of display or other code.
you'll need to provide a little more information to be understood.
Read the wdiff documentation and you will see the author admits he would have written a stand-alone tool that doesn't depend on diff if he could figure out the algorithm.
...
so, you see jim, i'm really trying to _help_ you in your quest here.
Thank you. Post a portable version or one compiled for windows and I will tell you how it works for me in practice. PS: doesn't really help me with *MY* quest since I have the tools *I* need to do my job the way I want to do it, but granted perhaps other people would be happier with the GUI approach you are suggesting. Since I post the source code they can apply my work however they want to.