Hi BB, Thanx for the clarification. No, I was referring to you, just making it clear I was giving my own opinion. regards Keith. Am 14.12.2011 um 18:18 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
keith said:
I can not tell you why BB does it
thanks for declining to speak on my behalf, as i am no longer answering jim's questions, not unless someone else rephrases them first.
this ensures that the question is a worthy one, and not simply a bad waste of everyone's time.
if you, keith, _intended_ to refer this question to me simply by quoting it in your reply to it, let me reiterate that you must _rephrase_it_...
that ensures that the question is not _vague_, or _misleading_. or at least it minimizes that. sadly, jim has something of a mush-mouth...
for example, just this one time, to elucidate, i will pick up jim's question.
jim said:
What I am not clear about is why BB insists that what one starts from must be an "an impoverished text-file"
first, if someone is "not clear about" something i've said -- or not said, as the case might be -- the best thing to do is ask me for my reasoning. i can assure you that i've thought about it, and i do indeed have good reasons for my decision.
so -- just like they require you on jeopardy -- your question must be phrased _as_a_question_.
jim has instead phrased this as an _assertion_. moreover, jim said that i "insist" on something.
the problem is, jim's assertion is simply incorrect. meaning, of course, his extension that i "insist" it is doubly incorrect, compounding things further.
this is typical of jim. wrong piled on top of wrong.
i do not "insist" that people start with plain-text, not if they realistically have a choice in the matter.
look at a post i made as recently as november 16th:
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/private/gutvol-d/2011-November/008360.html
you will clearly see that i explicitly recommended that a digitizer have finereader output an .rtf file, because .rtf retains some vital styling information.
indeed, this was post #001 in my current series, the very thread under which this post was made!
so jim is trying to commandeer _my_ point, as if he was using it as counterargument against me! once again, he shows up on _my_ side of the net, hits the ball back to his court, and calls it a winner. it's a very strange way of agreeing with me... :+)
i also repeated the .rtf suggest on november 21st:
http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/private/gutvol-d/2011-November/008385.html
this was a suggestion aimed at alex and archive.org.
again, the intent is to retain vital styling information, which you will otherwise have to reinsert once again...
so that's the best way to "start". if you have the choice.
but in a lot of situations, people do not have a choice.
if you want to use the o.c.r. from an archive.org book, you are stuck with plain-text, absent the styling info...
or if you're a volunteer at d.p., postprocessing a book, you are stuck with plain-text, albeit with styling info... (even if a lot of it is rendered in d.p. pseudo-markup.)
so i don't "insist" that a digitizer "start with" plain-text. i just recognize it as a common reality of the situation.
now, i _do_ recommend that a person take the .rtf and convert it to an ascii file, retaining the vital styling info, so maybe jim was "really" asking why i recommend that. but i gave up on trying to interpret what's in jim's mind. still, if anyone wants me to answer that question, ask it!
-bowerbird _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d