Hi All,
Been following this thread loosely.
But the fact remains that the problem is the encoding
of the digital text!!! NOT, the output.
I have said it time and time again, the the encoding has
to encode the information of the original scan or p-text.
Thats is a rendering of such an encoding will produce
a fairly close copy of the original. (I use rendering
here as a way of producing the text; either in text or
display)
For the output you simply use those parts of the
encoding for your output that you need.
The page number problem can be handled because
out of convention they are placed in the header or
footer of a page. So if you do not want the original
pagenumbers then just skip them.
If you want the original page breaks use them and
output it where you want it.
I agree with BB, but we have different ways about doing it.
michael said:
> If you have a point to make, you missed.
i think lots of people got the point. but you evidently missed it.
> Take better aim and try again, or give it up.
my aim is true. i've done enough. i have no need to "give up",
_or_ to continue. the future is the entity that will deal with this.
doesn't matter how much friction we generate. the future will deal.
and this is how the future will do that dealing:
1. it will need to tell which texts are accurate and which are not,
because it will find itself awash in e-books without provenance...
2. it will do this determination by comparing digital text to scans.
(it will test the validity of the scans by comparing them to p-books.)
3. digital text which retained pagination/linebreaks will lend itself
better to this comparison process, so it will generally tend to "win",
and the "best practice" will come to require this aspect, and strictly.
4. digital text which is difficult to get to (e.g., zipped up in .epub,
obscured by some opaque format, unduly burdened by d.r.m., etc.)
and text which has discarded its pagination/linebreaks will lose out.
i have no interest in engaging in "debate" on these 4 points,
because it's perfectly clear to me that they're all _inevitable_.
the question here is whether p.g. wants its e-texts in group #3 or #4.
-bowerbird
_______________________________________________
gutvol-d mailing list
gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d