jon said:
One can come up with all kinds of cool and simple systems to do a job, and 9 times out of 10 none of them will work in the real world, at least without some specific exceptions handling capability.
you obviously didn't understand what i said about the act of binding creating a specific linearity which we can duplicate by a judicious naming of the files, thereby rendering all of your "exceptions" moot. if you think there is a situation that i cannot handle, describe it here. otherwise, your ignorance is showing. my system will "work in the real world", and without imposing undue difficulty on volunteers. indeed, it will make their work go much easier...
So it does pay to identify and discuss the exceptions before deciding on any design which will be employed in a system that will handle thousands and eventually millions of texts.
again, show me _one_ "exception" that i cannot handle.
If one "does it right" at the start, it makes things easier down the road, even if mid-course corrections are later required due to things that just could not be foreseen.
i'm saying you don't know how to "do it right", and that the "system" you are proposing is unnecessarily complex.
The more exceptions that are handled today, the fewer that will need to be handled tomorrow -- that sounds good when are talking about one million etexts.
i'll say it one more time: show me one exception. just one. i've been thinking about this part of the workflow for _years_, years which include experience at every step of the process, including ones that you won't get around to for a good while. if you think your off-the-top-of-the-head musings trump that, you're obviously deluded. and given your lack of experience, it must be particularly galling to the regular scanners at d.p. that _you_ now want to make the rules about how they do it. -bowerbird