sorry, i screwed up that last post, and forgot to include this:

greg said:
>   Your earlier message said you could offer
>   reformatting into any reasonable format,
>   as long as the input was sufficiently
>   well-formed to your standards. 

actually, as the header shows, i said "any possible format",
which is kind of ludicrous in retrospect, isn't it?

so let's be precise about exactly _what_ formats we mean,
in the future, and let us further provide _samples_ so that
people can evaluate the _quality_ of the conversions we do.

otherwise, it's just a hype war, and that does no one any good.


>   Sounds like you don't actually have any such thing.

it's not released yet, no.  but i have pointed to samples.


>   Put it up for free public download,
>   and I'll change my tune in a heartbeat.

would that you were so demanding of the .tei folks.

***

now, let me restate, just to remind everybody again,
i have no objection to the .tei folks, or the .xml folks.

i don't even have an objection that .tei is the "official"
position on how project gutenberg moves to the future.

i merely wish to assert _my_ opinion, which i will back up
with solid evidence, that a much simpler methodology will
give substantially similar (if not better) benefits, at a cost
(both initial and maintenance) that is _significantly_ lower.

even then, if people want to stick with the .tei/.xml method,
that's fine with me, as it is no skin off my nose.  comprenez?

-bowerbird