greg said:
I'm entirely in favor of automatic conversion to & from different formats. Of master formats.
the problem is you don't _have_ a master format... except for maybe r.s.t., and its uptake is very slim. and you don't have any adequate converters either. your .rst-to-.html converter makes people unhappy. your .rst-to-.epub converter makes people unhappy. your .rst-to-.mobi converter makes people unhappy. your .html-to-.mobi converter makes people unhappy. your .html-to-.epub converter makes people unhappy. your .txt-to-.mobi converter makes people unhappy. your .txt-to-.epub converter makes people unhappy. your .txt-to-.html converter isn't as bad as the others, but it's still not anything near to what it _could_ be...
I was personally deeply involved in a whole lot of our current setup for those things
that's nothing to brag about, as clearly indicated above.
and am hugely optimistic about improvements in the future.
ok, there's something we can all agree would be nice... until you have a master-format, however, i'd think that your "optimism" might be a tad bit unfounded. but, hey, i'll be more than happy to admit it if you prove me wrong. the point is this: yes, your converters definitely need work. but the problem lies much deeper, i.e., in your input-files... until you have some consistency in your input-files, you will constantly be battling against nature's ability to make fools. and yes, greg, yes, yes, a thousand times yes, this is _exactly_ the pro-consistency argument which i've been making forever. and now you see why. and my constant prediction that you would have to face this very demon, sooner or later, has now also been vindicated...
Meanwhile, we have an immediate and useful way to improve many reader's experiences, by providing access to hand-crafted alternatives.
except you're just setting yourself up for future complications. _inconsistency_ is the problem. you can't solve it with "more".
It should be obvious that I'm constantly seeking the long-term view of Project Gutenberg.
it's not obvious, because your "solutions" cause more problems. that's not a way to take "a long-term view". if you said instead that you were "seeking a short-term, temporary fix", then yeah, i might buy what you're selling. but even then, it is a bad idea.
That is why I'm thinking of solutions that involve keeping all derived files or changes we create/publish/distribute, forever.
keeping crap around forever is not a long-term solution either. in fact, it's the exact opposite: a big albatross around your neck.
But that doesn't mean I'm against providing some files that will only have a few days, months or years of useful life before they are superseded.
except you don't have a mechanism for deciding to supersede. and once those files are out in the wild, you can't "expire" them. the more you talk, the worse this idea sounds. especially since "the problem" which you're attempting to solve has _already_ been solved. we know, for the most part, how to mark up .html that will give us a good .mobi and a good .epub. (at least once we give up the ghost that .html can be a "master", such that the exact same .html gives good .mobi _and_ .epub.) the hard part, then, is getting d.p. postprocessors to _use_ that. they've each developed their snowflake workflow, and are loathe to give it up. especially since -- and this is the _hardest_ part -- they refuse to settle for a "dumbed-down" .html file that doesn't "look like" the paper-book. but... if you can give 'em "the look", they _will_ standardize their .html, for the greater good, because they actually _do_ want the work to become useful in more places. and, of course, if you would have listened to me _six_years_ago_, when i was telling you the same thing, project gutenberg could've been the role-model for google, and internet archive, and amazon. but you were off lost in your xml/tei haze of confusion instead... and even to this very day, you are _still_ overcomplicating things! -bowerbird