Below...
-----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Keith J. Schultz Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:08 AM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] What was all that noise about?
Hi Al,
Yes, they were discussed. It was shown that the FAQs, and to put it politely the FAQs are in adequate, misleading and incomplete.
In others words they do not describe current practices or policies!
What we have learned: 1) the acceptance of handcrafted ebooks is up to the WWs
If the handcrafted files, be they text or HTML, are up to PG's publicly stated standards, there's little to prevent their acceptance. (PG, like any organization, has the right to set standards for itself, and to expect submitters to meet those standards.)
2) the WWs do not have a set of rules for accepting ebooks
See response to #1.
3) the WWs consesus of what is acceptable is not availible publicly
4) there are not guidelines for submitters to verify that
See response to #1 their
submissions will most likely be accepted.
See response to #1
5) Many have ideas have an idea how the ebooks should be formatted, yet no concise guidelines exist.
See response to #1. The FAQs may not be "concise", but they contain the guidelines.
6) RST is the proclaimed master format
RST has never, so far as I know, been the "proclaimed master format." TEI is also an accepted master format, as is Latex, but it's used mostly for math-heavy stuff. As has been stated elsewhere, RST is useful only for fairly simple books. So far as I know, it's never been touted as a format for complex material. (I have used RST for a couple of my projects, but I freely admit that I have limited RST experience.)
7) Guidelines are missing of preferable mark up inside of RST at least they are to rudimentary.
The only formal RST documentation I know of is at http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html. Personally, I'd like to see someone publish a book along the lines of "RST Made Simple" or "RST Cookbook". There are several RST-related pages in PG, but they mostly deal with specifics, like the PG boilerplate (http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:The_PG_boilerplate_for_RST).
8) Guidelines and specifications are missing for creating tools. So that the can be tested to see if they are adequate or acceptable.
PG doesn't create tools. What submitters use to create their submissions is entirely up to them. Whether that's a word processor, a text editor, something home-grown, or whatever, is irrelevant to PG.
9) the existing tools do not have specifications to test against, nor do they fully follow all rules and policies that are somehow considered to be existent.
See response to #8 (and #1)
10) existing tools are not well suited for the uninformed
In my experience with "the uninformed" (i.e. first-time submitters), most of their problems are because: 1) they haven't read PG's assorted FAQs, so have no notion of what's expected of them, and 2) they have little or no idea of how to use their software, e.g. a word processor, to get the expected results, and/or 3) the project is too complex for their skill level.
11) there is a preference for web-based tools
Not that I've ever heard of. (All my projects have been produced with non-web software. I'd never attempt to produce an ebook with web tools.)
So what we have is an aristocratic anarchy. Privileged few that do what they consider is best, without them truly stating the rules of the game or necessarily abiding by what is proclaimed to be what is going on!
I doubt any of the WWers consider themselves "aristocratic" or "anarchic". I certainly don't. As for "privileged", in the sense that nine years ago I found a hobby that never fails to be entertaining and educational, I consider myself privileged.
regards Keith.
P.S. The truth of above statements are in the threads of the past month or so! The matter is futile to debate, because it has already been debated "ad absurdum".
The "truth" is that there's no right or wrong way to produce a submission to PG. I have my way, others are welcome to their way(s). PG's standards have been stated for a number of years now (at least 10). If someone doesn't want to meet those standards, they're quite welcome to take their submission(s) elsewhere. If a first-time submitter hasn't read them, they're referred to the FAQ's. (I read them, nearly 10 years ago, and had no trouble understanding them.) Al
Keith
Am 09.03.2012 um 04:32 schrieb Al Haines:
Discussion of what is or is not an "ebook" I leave to others.
PG's submission standards have been discussed/described/argued about in other threads in this forum. There's more information in PG's various FAQ's at http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Category:FAQ.
I can't speak to questions about PG's software and the maintenance thereof.
Al
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d