On 2/24/2011 5:00 PM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
Actually, I think HTML a very poor format. What I have in mind is something that looks more like LaTeX.
As near as I can tell, LaTeX and HTML (and TEI), when appropriately refined and extended, are functionally equivalent. I tend to prefer XHTML primarily because it is more ubiquitous--there are more people who understand the syntax, and more tools available to both manipulate XHTML files and view them without conversion. Of secondary concern is that I, personally, have much more experience with XHTML than with LaTeX, so I feel more comfortable with it. That having been said, if you could generate a consensus that LaTeX is the best option I would support that decision, as the two formats are functionally equivalent, and having /some/ standard is preferable to having /no/ standard. However, you have completely side-stepped the first problem, which is Project Gutenberg's complete and utter unwillingness to adopt any standard or process reasonable calculated to improve its offerings. It's possible that we might be able to route around this damage if we could convince the white washers to accept submissions without an accompanying impoverished text version. At one point PG was also rejecting files that were simply more-or-less parallel versions of that which already existed in the PG repository (separate .epub for ADE, .epub for Stanza, .epub for Nook, for example). This barrier does seem to be relaxing, but I don't know what the current position is. So, maybe we could do the following: 1. Develop a consensus method for marking up e-books, and thoroughly document it. 2. Pick a file extension that will not conflict with any extension currently used in the PG repository. 3. Create an automated process that will create an impoverished text version from the "master" version. This impoverished text version will be used only to satisfy the white washers; it is not intended to ever actually be downloaded. 4. Slip the documented consensus method into the PG Wiki; we should probably put it up on a few web sites that PG does not control as well. 5. Lurk around on those lists where Project Gutenberg volunteers congregate; regularly post messages there to the effect of "Here's a markup method that will permit automated conversion of your labors of love to many different formats. We encourage you to try it. Post it to <some URL that accepts uploads> and we'll try to get Project Gutenberg to accept it." (Usually you can get around intransigent white washers by going to Michael Hart directly). 6. Monitor submissions of this type of file to be sure that the files available via PG really /do/ meet the requirements of the consensus markup method. I'm sure we could not rely on the white washers to enforce these requirements for us, and I suspect that the repository might occasionally be subjected to vandalism. Of course, we could do almost the same thing but upload the files to a repository that is out of Project Gutenberg's direct control, and that might make things easier. WikiSource perhaps?