Actually, the WWers pretty much have had to use
both since PG decided to accept only a single text file of whatever character
set was needed to express the source material.
To use
48325 as an example, Gutcheck sees this line (line 27 of the submitted
file):
_“THE WIDE, WIDE WORLD,”
“QUEECHY,”
like
this:
_“THE WIDE, WIDE WORLD,â€
“QUEECHY,â€
resulting in a "missing space" warning. If the
line is too long, Gutcheck will also issue a "line too long"
warning.
Bookloupe sees the line properly, but
doesn't/can't check the quotes.
Gutspell sees the strange characters as part of the
word, and flags the word as a misspell. This isn't limited to
quotes--words adjacent to, or that contain, Unicode em-dashes,
apostrophes, or ellipses cause the same problem.
To
check quotes, and to have Gutspell work properly, the WWers have to use Unitame
to generate a temporary Latin1 text file from the UTF8 file, and
Gutcheck/Jeebies/Gutspell the Latin1 file.
As a
WWer, I don't mind UTF8 text files that contain necessary Unicode characters,
e.g. Greek, etc, but UTF8 text files that contain only Unicode quotes,
apostrophes, em-dashes, and similar NON-necessary Unicode characters, are just a
nuisance. If a text file doesn't need Unicode characters, submit a Latin1
text file. It's a lot easier on the WWers.
Al
On 2/26/2015 1:30 PM, James Adcock wrote:
Huh. Not obvious to me
what he is doing in bookloupe.
Bookloupe
was intended to be the UTF-8-aware replacement for gutcheck. However, if I
remember correctly, at the time the author wrote it PG wanted it to report all
the same errors as gutcheck would or they would not agree to switch over to
using it.
So it ended up only partially UTF-8-aware, as with full UTF-8
awareness it wouldn't report some errors that gutcheck would have reported.
But as far as I know Bookloupe is what PG now uses, not gutcheck.
--
Walt