I would not call BB's idea or concepts BS. They have their merit as you well say, below. I agree doing references is a big pain. The problem is that there is no sure way to get it right. Some can be done semi-automatically. Yet, most will have to been corrected. 1) general page references will be hard and only work if you have marks from the original. Yet, for an e-book the have to be adjusted so that they refer to the part of the text in question, because an ebook has so to say dynamic pages. 2) Bibliographic references can be done, if you tag the Bibliography. It is possible to have this done automatically. 3) Indexes can be done if you have original page marks. A simple script can do this, but they will be some false positives, that is we have to mark the exact word or paragraph. You mention that you do not do mathematical formula, well others do. BB is trying to develop a minimal mark-up set. It is designed for consistency in a work flow. Naturally, there will always be books that will need special consideration and an extra feature set. regards Keith. Am 01.12.2011 um 01:44 schrieb Jim Adcock:
we're gonna look at a few more books from jim, where we will find need for tags for a few more structural elements, but what we will learn is that this job is pretty darn simple.
Just to state the obvious, this "analysis" by BB is BS, since I choose to pick books that don't have really hard parts re formatting issues, because I don't work on books I don't know how to do, or that I know how to do but look like a lot of work for the results. So, for example, I don't do books that require "typesetting" mathematical formulas. I don't do books that require lots of font changes. And I don't do books that have indexes. For that matter, I don't do page numbers, because they can easily be added back in by anyone who really cares, they do not fit in well with my work flow (which is very different from that which BB images) and because the systems I've seen so far for page numbers do not work on one or more platforms. So, I don't do this things -- but other people making PG books do.
So, what BB imagines as a markup set *does* seem to work pretty well for large parts of many late 1800s, early 1900s novels -- but that is not everything PG book transcribers want to do. Every book I've worked on has some parts which don't fit these ideas of simple markup sets. [What BB is contemplating IS a "Markup Set" it's just that it's a contextually implied markup set -- a big ouch IMHO for anyone who has tried such -- its much easier just to tell a computer what you want it to do in the first place.)
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d