----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Lawton <scott_bulkmail@productarchitect.com>
Also, as noted in http://classicosm.com/xml/feedbackonpgtei.html: In the PG license, section numbers such as "1.A." should appear on the same line as the text that follows -- per the original and to avoid wasting space.
I agree. I'll work on an updated footer to forward on to Marcello.
A few notes based on a quick look: - class=dgp does seem to be overused. - span class="hi" style="font-variant: small-caps;" is a bit much; how about span class="smallCaps"?
You've got a point. I'll add a todo item to go through the default style and make it more intuitive (ie change the class names where appropriate) and create classes for things like small caps.
I also hate that the HTML is wrapped at 78 (or whatever) chars. I suppose few people will edit the output, but it seems like a wasteful throwback. Don't people have editors that wrap text???
That you can blame on me. I used Tidy to rewrap everything because of the lots and lots of playing I did with the source code. Marcello's converter leaves the line breaks that were in the original XML source in place.
Option #1 - Convert the rend="indent" markup to & emsp ; & emsp ; (remove spaces for use). Pro: Degrades gracefully on non-CSS enabled browsers like Lynx. Con: Treats the indent as content.
I think the XHTML version should be completely modern, e.g. here's one way to indent using CSS: .indent {margin-left:40px; margin-right:40px}
There are benefits to an "old fashioned HTML" version, but let's make that a different file, probably 4.01 transitional.
I'm hoping for more discussion on this. I've had fairly heated discussion at DP on it.
5 - I used <lb /> to indicate a blank line of text (commonly called a thoughtbreak over at DP). Marcello's documentation indicates this isn't what it is truly meant for, though. Anyone see a problem with this implementation? Or see an improvement we should use instead?
Marcello suggested that a closing and opening div creates a blank line; I'm not convinced that's a good idea in general.
I don't like it definitely from the point of view of having to create the markup.
=====
Misc. questions:
* The following looks like a (minor) error: <head>Letter XVII</head> <p>LETTER XVII.</p>
The latter looks redundant.
My bad. Must have done a copy/paste into the head tag instead of a cut/paste there.
* Was the italics in the original here?
<p><hi rend="sc">Andover</hi>, <emph>May</emph> 30, 1854.</p>
I went by the text provided by DP on this. I didn't check closely to the original on this type of thing.
* Does the original really have several pages with no paragraph breaks?
Yep. Makes for easy reading, huh? ;) Josh