Re: 1) Paragraphs. PG is still serving books, frequently, like all the time, with broken paragraph formatting. Explain "broken paragraph formatting". Give examples. 5) Covers. Every book should have them, and they ought to be easy to implement. They're easy to create, but it's up to the book's submitter to create/provide them. (Not sure if custom covers have been discussed in this forum, but I think they have.) Don't expect PG to create them for you. I've done a number of custom covers over the past few months, e.g. 41020, 41021, 41022. I keep it simple--a solid color background, with title and author, and if necessary, volume information. 6) Title page. Again, pretty much every book should have them, and they should be easy to implement. The title page info should not have to also be submitted redundantly 12 other places. I'm baffled as to what this means. Every source book has one, or it probably couldn't be copyright-cleared. As a WWer, I can safely say that submissions without all of a title page's info are rare, and usually from beginners. As to submitting info in 12 other places--rubbish. Info has to be entered only once, in the copyright clearance submission form. That info is carried over to when the finished book is uploaded for WWing, at which time the uploader can make corrections to the info. The only time I have to enter info again is in the metadata section of one of my RST-based projects (e.g. 41020, 41021, 41022). 9) A clean, fun, positive-feedback way to submit books to PG, such that people WANT to submit books to PG, rather than do so grudgingly. A brass band, maybe? 10) A clean, fun, easy, robust way to preview and "smooth read" one's work and formatting and "conformance to standards" testing before submitting it to PG. Another baffler. How (and why) is PG supposed to provide smooth-read facilities to submitters? Independent producers are expected to proof/SR their submissions, and make sure they meet PG's standards, before uploading. (Those standards are well documented, but whether you like them or not, or are willing to meet them or not, is up to you.) I've SRed every one of my 1200+ submissions (just over 1100 to PG-US, over 100 to PG-Canada), and enjoyed, or was interested by, almost all of them. (I did learn early in my PG activity that I'm only a so-so on-screen SRer, so I do all my SRing from a paper print-out, away from my computer.) Al -----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of James Adcock Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:02 PM To: 'Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion' Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Basic simple test case. Let's back up a step, and see if there is some areas we can agree on, namely there are a variety of areas that pretty much every book has which are "simple as dirt" yet the books PG posts are still not handling these "simple everyday items" in a robust and reader-enjoyable manner. 1) Paragraphs. PG is still serving books, frequently, like all the time, with broken paragraph formatting. 2) TOC. Hard to implement in HTML and to get it to work "right" on the major platforms. 3) Blockquotes. Similar issues to paragraphs. 4) Illustrations. Hard to get right. Will work on some platforms and not others. Some submitted illustrations don't work on some platforms. 5) Covers. Every book should have them, and they ought to be easy to implement. 6) Title page. Again, pretty much every book should have them, and they should be easy to implement. The title page info should not have to also be submitted redundantly 12 other places. 7) PG Boilerplate. Should be implemented in an attractive and non-obtrusive manner, which does not scare off the readers, nor make PG look like idiots, and should be written in such a manner as to convince most readers that the boilerplate is actually a good thing to their advantage. 8) Statement that this book is "risen to the public domain" and what that means. The implication that PG is giving away this book is false, because the book is not PG's to give away. Rather, the book belongs to the public in the first place. 9) A clean, fun, positive-feedback way to submit books to PG, such that people WANT to submit books to PG, rather than do so grudgingly. 10) A clean, fun, easy, robust way to preview and "smooth read" one's work and formatting and "conformance to standards" testing before submitting it to PG. So what I claim we need is a simple method, using universally available and well-supported tools, to do these kinds of "dirt simple all the time" things, and do them in a way that actually works on BOTH the submitters side, and PG's side of things. Such support need not be implemented in terms of this, that or the other language. Nor does it matter much whether it is implemented client side or server side or a mix thereof.