Am 14.03.2010 um 23:58 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
jim said:
I decline to attach any verbiage at all. I tell you I wrote it and you can use it any way you like -- at your own risk and amusement, obviously.
[snip, snip]
your word "frequently" is simply (but completely) out of place.
in the vast majority of cases (96%) where there is a difference between the two versions, _one_ of the versions is _correct_... there _are_ some cases where both are incorrect, meaning that you need to do some editing, but such cases are relatively rare.
in the last book for which i did a comparison, gardner's text, there were 159 differences. there were only _3_ cases where _both_ versions were incorrect. so yes, it happens, but rarely.
True enough. Yet, the arguement stands. At least in my opinion. The trivial cases are easy to handle, yet it is always the RARE cases where tools can shine and set themselves apart from the rest.
And I like seeing each next to each other in context to help figure out what the “correct” editing moves are.
oh yeah, the context is _crucial_.
but i'm not sure that your _display_ is the optimal one... it takes a lot of visual parsing to figure out a diff like this:
no way. There { warn't | wam't } a window to it big enough
personally, i find this display _much_ easier to understand:
no way. There warn't a window to it big enough no way. There wam't a window to it big enough ================^^============================
(i hope the monospaced font came through. if so, you'll see the "^^" markers line up with the diff.)
and i believe most users would agree that this display is better.
but, you know, if some users like _your_ display better, _fine!_ :+)
Actually, both methods are kind of primitive from a Human Interface standpoint. a better way would be having two windows containing two or more lines above and below the diff and marking each. If you ever work with critical editions you will understand the cavet of this method. The changes can then be made in a third. All can be enhanced with colors and other neat features.
oh, and one more note on "context". sometimes it can fool you. the choice that looks right might not be what was in the book... that's why it's vitally important that your tool show you the scan. otherwise, you're doing your edits blind...
Very true. regards Keith. P.S. There will always more than one way to skin a cat!