On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM, James Adcock <jimad@msn.com> wrote:
First of all, what PG requires sadly is NOT a "text" file. For example I can create a "text" file from an html file in two seconds doing "cut and paste." The result is a text file. Is it something that PG will accept as their "PG-text" file? Sadly, no. Michael thought the details of text format choices didn't matter, and then proceeded to make a "fatal error" in what detailed text format he chose to standardize on. Namely he insisted on detailed and gratuitous extraneous newline inclusion rules.
It is a text file; still the standard on most systems that prefer text files. The details of text format did matter, and he picked the ones that worked for the computers he was working on. Fancy wordwrap did not exist on the text reading tools that came with the computers PG started targetting. MS-DOS Edit came out in 1991; before that, the text tools you could depend on any PC owner having were edlin and more. Like many other features, it was the right decision at the time. On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de> wrote:
On 10/03/2012 10:19 PM, Jeroen Hellingman wrote:
There are long discussions on the PGDP boards about post processing for ePub, but basically, I refuse to dumb-down my HTML for the sake of limited ePub readers,...
This is the very attitude that damages PG:
And not the attitude that you should abuse other volunteers and ignore their real concerns?
People, that think that 'their' HTML is superior to everybody else's and don't understand that the value of a big collection (vs. a single text) lies in its homogeneity and device independence.
People who want page numbers in scholarly editions are hardly unrealistic. As far as I know, PG has never tried to set up rules for homogenous HTML, especially HTML that does what people need it to. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.