sebastien said:
>   Most of the time the original typesetting does not matter much.

different people can disagree on that.


>   I believe you are missing the point.
>   Michael doesn't care as much about collections of pictures
>   as he does about digitalized text.

different people disagree with michael.


>   As long as scans and/or OCR technologies are so disappointing,
>   we'll have to rely on higher-level humain brains with initiatives
>   such as PGDP or ebooksgratuits.com

or methodologies which are better.


>   Of course having easy access to pictures is useful and
>   much better than nothing and serves you well, but
>   that's not what PG and ebooks are about.

different people can disagree on that too.


>   ebooks are much more than photographs of regular analog books.

yes, but photographs of regular analog books
_might_ qualify as e-books, for _some_ people.

different people can disagree on that too.


>   3. is the top we are heading for. 2. is just a step on the way.

but #2 might serve the needs of person x just fine.


>   I did that and got
>   20845628 bytes for 604 pages.

scans are resource hogs.  nobody disagrees about that.

one argument is that since these resources are now plentiful,
it doesn't matter that scans are resource hogs.

different people can disagree on that too.

as long as we can easily move scan-sets to digitized text,
i don't see much purpose in continuing to debate these two
as if they were competitors.  they're not.  they're complimentary.

-bowerbird