On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:04:49 -0800 (PST), Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Jon Gorman wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:20:52 -0500, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua@hutchinson.net> wrote:
You know, it's like you're deliberately trying to make me angry!
NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED SWEEPING IT AWAY!
In fact, every person that has suggested a change of some kind has advocated putting >the obsolete format document somewhere accessible. Just not right out in front where an >uninformed visitor will see it, click it and get frustrated. It reflects poorly on PG as a whole >and turns off potential users from ever coming back.
Given my rather infrequent posting to this list (although long time lurking from a variety of email addresses) I'm rather hesitant to throw more fuel on the fire. But I have to agree with the idea behind Joshu Hutchinson and Jon Noring's suggestions. The folio is confusing when it is the first return result, and people do have a tendency to hit the first result.
No one is suggesting it should be the first result.
I believe Greenstone (the new software behind the scenes at gutenberg.org) allows pretty precise sorting of returns on various conditions. Would it be possible to always return the text format as the first return? This would help highlight the importance of the text format without having to decide when a format is outdated or unsupported, needs to be moved to the suggested "old" directory, or a "stupid, stupid formats" page.
However, this sort of sweeping out of sight is not acceptable.
Michael, I think people are trying to understand what you mean by hiding or sweeping away. The mere fact the folio appears first is an unintentional accident of sorting. You yourself says that no one is arguing it should be first. Yet, down here you say changing the order is not acceptable. Should we be moving all the obsolete formats to the front, essentially doing the opposite? What service does that provide? Indeed by having the text format be first and foremost, it should send a clear signal of the preferred format, and can be linked to another page explaining why.
Try again when those of us who spent all the effort on this Folio project are dead, eh?
Michael, no one is trying to disparage your efforts. Indeed, I have some questions. Do we have it in writing there would always be a free reader? I've seen some algorithms and code that decodes the folio format. Would the lack a free reader for the folio allow these to be legally available for a person to develop a reader/converter program for it?
I know my first thought when seeing the folio was to think "That's got to be an error, who would be crazy enough to publish that as a folio".
That's the whole point. . .let us make that point.
Right.....but how often are encodings named after words like folio or quarto? Just serves another dose of confusion.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d