Yes, after the initial proposal, there were 5 or six other proposals made in the same thread to drag it off in odd courses. As far as I can see there's only one person actually doing anything other than argue. That's hanne_dk and I hope to see an automated script to process DPs intermediate files into something that doesn't look too bad for most texts. It appears it'll never get "official" approval as there's too many people adamantly against doing to to "their" texts. Oh well. Greg Weeks On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Andrew Sly wrote:
I agree that's what has been said in discussions on the DP forums. I would argue that intent was not clear from what's been been posted on this list.
From what I've seen, it's hard to stay focused on one concept, because everyone starts dragging in their own concerns on marginally related topics and making those the main focus.
--Andrew
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Greg Weeks wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Al Haines (shaw) wrote:
Speaking as a Whitewasher (and probably for the other WWers, too), I have absolutely no interest in posting a "preliminary" version of something if a "revised" version is going to appear in a few days/weeks/months, requiring me to re-do the posting process. Ditto for posting a text-only version if an HTML version is in the works.
The proposal isn't to "post" to PG at all, but to something like preprints.readingroo.ms but entirely automated.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
-- Greg Weeks http://durendal.org:8080/greg/