keith said:
>   Slow down a bit BB,

oh dear sweet lord...


>   You are misunderstanding something here.
>   I leave out the html part because
>   that is a different matter which
>   you can have out with don!

yeah, well, gee, keith, that's very unfortunate.

because "the html part" was the on-topic part,
the relevant part, the part we were talking about.

so don was the one who was "misunderstanding".

because -- as he admitted in his last message --
he had shifted the topic to his use of wordpress
as a _storage_mechanism_ for existing html/css.

just to remind people...

i criticized lee's tool because it kicked in only
_after_ the text had been marked up in .html,
as if the markup process happened magically,
when -- as i said -- markup is "the hard part".

lee responded that word-processors can do
a conversion to .html.  (which i had granted
already, but noted their markup is terrible.)

then jim replied "you could use open office".
open office, the software which proves that
an open-source effort can create a program
as bloated and complex as microsoft makes.
yeah, great suggestion, jim.  bzzzt.  next!...

and then don stepped in to suggest wordpress.

and yes, wordpress will turn text into .html...
but the output is a mess.  so i called him on it.

and then he responded that he wasn't actually
using wordpress to mark up the text into .html.

in other words, he admitted he was off-topic...
(not directly, of course.  but it was clear enough
that i didn't even feel the need to rephrase it --
until now.)


>   It is the database part you do not understand.

i understood "the database part" fine, both in the
part of its mechanics, and the part it was off-topic.

and, as i said, as long as don is only talking about
his _own_ use of wordpress, for his _own_ project,
as a content-management-system, i'm fine with it.


>   The user need not know anything of the database
>   to extract, use, and save files, in what ever format!

that's true, keith, but only on a very superficial basis.

what if i want to "use" one of the files by submitting it
to an exterior spell-check app?  or grammar-check?

what if i want to merge all of them into a single file?

what if i want to do a specific search-and-replace on
any files that contain graphics, but a different one on
any files that do not contain graphics, except for the
ones which contain front-matter, plus i need to do a
separate search-and-replace on the reference section?


>   You see the database is first and firmly just
>   a filing system for the files!  Just like the OS is!

except those systems aren't "just like" each other by
any stretch of the imagination, since the file system
is understood implicitly by every average user because
it is utilized every day in the course of normal practice,
whereas only a tiny percentage of them know databases,
and only a few of _those_ people can manipulate mysql.

and it shouldn't even be necessary for me to explain that,
because if you can't see a gulf that wide, you must be blind,
or have your eyes closed, or have your head stuck somewhere.


>   So, if don wants to use a database (system) as a file(filing)
>   system what is wrong with that.

i answered that question up above.

for his own stuff, don can use any system he likes.
why would i care, in the slightest?

but if don wants to suggest a database approach
for a system that has thousands of users who are
digitizing thousands of books, all with one database,
then i'm going to suggest that he rethink that model.

which was a _different_ thread we had going here once.

(but your comment here, keith, if off-topic to both.)


>   But, the people administering the site
>   know it is there and glad they have it.

ok, and here is the crux.

you guys are all happy to invent a site with "administrators".

my aim is to create a workflow that average people grok,
and can manipulate, if necessary, _without_ administrators.

because, as d.p. has shown so clearly to those who can see,
once you have a need for "administrators", the system gets
trapped by the power-hungry and becomes nonresponsive...


>   Basically, Don will have a front end to his database,
>   that will give you all you need and it will be just as easy
>   (probably easier) than using your script based system.

that's what the "administrator" types always _promise_.

"i'll make things easy for you, give you all you need..."

but once you turn over your soul to them, it's too late.


>   On the other side I would have to learn
>   how to use your scripts and how to find them,
>   how to reprogram them to work
>   for a particular book or text!

my word, keith, you seem to know _a_lot_
about something you know nothing about.


>   To quote Steve Jobs: "It just works!"

it's easy to quote steve jobs.  any blooming idiot can do it!
it's a heckuva lot harder to make something that just works.

***

so, um, no, keith, i'm not going to "slow down".  sorry, dude.

however, i will kindly suggest that you speed up.  to keep up.

-bowerbird