I don't think it matters which way the policy sits, in terms of this discussion. The fact in any case is that the text needs to accord with some printed (and therefore photographed and therefore OCRed) version, and it's equally legitimate to expect that the canonical text needs to agree with the canonical images. And we still have the same requirement for a set of images to prevent text paralysis. So the foundation is that set of images, and the first layer is an iteratively improvable text, which need to be easily comparable with each other. The definition of a "necessary and sufficient" image set is one where all the pages are present and it's readable. The definition of a "necessary and sufficient" canonical text is to be determined. Don On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jon Hurst <jon.a@hursts.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 2012-09-24, Greg Newby wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Jon Hurst wrote:
... The value in the MS is in its unequivocal nature. It says: "After much discussion amongst knowledgeable people, this, and only this, is what we at PG consider to be a version of this book. Everything else we publish is a derivation of this. If they don't match this, they are in error."
This is exactly opposite the PG policy. We specificaly do NOT adhere to any print edition. (That is part of why you will find it really hard to find a matching print source for many PG eBooks.)
Ah.... that does rather torpedo the scheme. The MS is de facto what I described. The RTT would be based on it, and the derivatives would be based on the RTT, one way or another. Therefore the final ebooks _would_ all adhere to the print edition that the MS was sourced from, or be incorrect and need fixing. The whole scheme, unless I am misunderstanding something, would therefore appear to be the exact opposite of PG policy. Is this a correct interpretation?
Cheers
Jon _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d