On Thu, February 2, 2012 3:13 am, don kretz wrote:
> Isn't that the process that started out this discussion - the process that
> Greg said is the problem we're trying to fix?
Two different things. Mr. Hutchinson started one discussion when he said:
> I'd love to see the PG corpus redone as a "master format" system (and the
> current filesystem supports "old" format files in a subdirectory, so if
> someone wanted to get the old original hand-made files, they could). I'm
> not particularly wedded to any master format. Hell, if someone came up
> with a sufficiently constrained HTML vocabulary that could be easily used to
> "generate" the additional formats necessary, I'm good with that.
Mr. Newby responded to that post by taking the conversation in a totally
different direction than what Mr. Hutchinson had posted.
Personally, I'm interested in Mr. Hutchinson's original proposal, not Mr.
Newby's unrelated concerns.
> Come to think of it, what is the benefit of what you are proposing?
The biggest benefit is that it will allow sophisticated users (uploaders, not
downloaders) to do an end run around the PG apparatchiks. It will provide a
method for the master format to evolve as our understanding of the automated
creation process improves. It will provide a history of changes to documents
so evolutionary dead ends can be backed out, and it will provide a record of
who is responsible for which changes.
> Is it related to the problems the rest of us have been discussing?
For me, it's right on point.