Quick question to Don/Roger/Anyone who PM's at DP. Assume Greg has got us a scan that of P&P. What DP rule are we breaking by skipping P3, F1, F2 and doing a simplified PP consisting of diffing against extant text and converting to UTF-8?
There are existing rules for P3 and F2 skips, and some unusual texts that use different workflows (the copyright registration renewals spring to mind). But processing a text through that won't end up as a final text at PG would require, IMO, notification of the proofers from the start, and approval of Louise; both of the experimental workflow and use of the squirrel time to manually herd projects that don't fit the existing flow. I don't think this is an impossible request; P1 and P2 are rather flat at the moment. IMO, it would help if we had assurance from PG that the revised texts would be offered up instead of, or at least ahead of, the older 'popular' editions. -R C On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jon Hurst <jon.a@hursts.eclipse.co.uk>wrote:
Quick question to Don/Roger/Anyone who PM's at DP.
Assume Greg has got us a scan that of P&P. What DP rule are we breaking by skipping P3, F1, F2 and doing a simplified PP consisting of diffing against extant text and converting to UTF-8?
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Jon Hurst <jon.a@hursts.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
Quick question to Don/Roger/Anyone who PM's at DP.
Assume Greg has got us a scan that of P&P. What DP rule are we breaking by skipping P3, F1, F2 and doing a simplified PP consisting of diffing against extant text and converting to UTF-8?
I don't think there is a "rule" for this at DP. If you want to attempt it, get DP management to buy off on it first and then be very clear in the project instructions that the users' work is not going to be taken to a finished book on the DP site. I believe some users would choose not to work on a project, especially with LOTE rules, that is only doing P1 and P2. That's not the DP workflow. If you were to get that done, I understand that the P2 output is the RTT in your scheme. That means that anyone who derives a final version (HTML, epub, kf8 etc. file) from it has to find and handle all the markup like intalics and superscripts on their own. It's not coded in the RTT if it's coming out of P2, since formatting is not present in the proofing stages, even inline formatting. That is a serious shortcoming to me. --Roger
On 2012-09-27, Roger wrote:
I don't think there is a "rule" for this at DP. If you want to attempt it, get DP management to buy off on it first and then be very clear in the project instructions that the users' work is not going to be taken to a finished book on the DP site. I believe some users would choose not to work on a project, especially with LOTE rules, that is only doing P1 and P2. That's not the DP workflow.
If you were to get that done, I understand that the P2 output is the RTT in your scheme. That means that anyone who derives a final version (HTML, epub, kf8 etc. file) from it has to find and handle all the markup like intalics and superscripts on their own. It's not coded in the RTT if it's coming out of P2, since formatting is not present in the proofing stages, even inline formatting. That is a serious shortcoming to me.
Interesting. I was thinking it would be better to just do P1 and P2 on the basis that the rounds were so imbalanced and this would help. What you are indicating is that there is a higher chance of successfully getting Louise on side if we were to do a full workflow. This would, of course, work fine. The only abnormality would be we would pull off P3 output, do the diff against the extant text (giving us actually an even cleaner RTT), then push the RTT back in as F1 input. You also indicate that what the snapshot that _you_ would actually like is essentially F2, which again points to a full workflow. Is this a reasonable interpretation? Cheers Jon
On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Jon Hurst <jon.a@hursts.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
Interesting. I was thinking it would be better to just do P1 and P2 on the basis that the rounds were so imbalanced and this would help. What you are indicating is that there is a higher chance of successfully getting Louise on side if we were to do a full workflow. This would, of course, work fine. The only abnormality would be we would pull off P3 output, do the diff against the extant text (giving us actually an even cleaner RTT), then push the RTT back in as F1 input. You also indicate that what the snapshot that _you_ would actually like is essentially F2, which again points to a full workflow. Is this a reasonable interpretation?
I have not heard of an external P3.5 round and then loading images back in. The reload would have to be done by the squirrels. Another problem will be to do the diff, you'll have to join the pages and then put them back as individual files, properly (by DP standards) split again. A bigger issue is that the process would involve formatting that--correct me if I'm wrong--would not be used to post-process the book. The RTT is what is going to PG and whever wants to would start from that. There would be no PP at DP on the text. Don has reported that historically this was not allowed. Any part of the workflow meant all of the workflow. I don't think this will change at DP. You could ask, but I expect you will continue to get no answer or a "no-changes" answer, which isn't the one you want. Bowerbird put it succinctly and early: this is not going to happen because of DP and PG realities. We are still discussing it but we're getting to the same conclusion. If DP involvement is required, then seems to me that's enough to pull the plug on the original proposal. It's your brainchild, though, so if you do see a reason I should still hold out hope, let me know. If you want to do this I think you need new DP-like people that will work to make a RTT-compliant text and WW-like people outside of PG that will verify that the RTT has captured all that is needed such that it can be called a master version. Then you need PP-like people, again outside of DP, that will generate the various output formats and a PG-like place that is not PG to host the RTT and the end-user downloadble versions. --Roger
"Roger" == Roger Frank <rfrank@rfrank.net> writes:
Roger> I have not heard of an external P3.5 round and then loading Roger> images back in. The reload would have to be done by the Roger> squirrels. No, no squirrel is needed; if any error is found in the P3 txt, the PM can "fix" the P3 txt while the project is waiting for F1 release (probably with an (hold). Since one would expect just a few corrections, this is not a difficult or heavy task. And the only reason why there is a "fix" button with a "Modify previous round text" link is to correct previous round errors, so it is not a backdoor, just a feature. Carlo
On 2012-09-27, Roger wrote:
I have not heard of an external P3.5 round and then loading images back in. The reload would have to be done by the squirrels.
Para deleted in favour of Carlo's answer. My idea here was much more technical and much, much worse.
Another problem will be to do the diff, you'll have to join the pages and then put them back as individual files, properly (by DP standards) split again.
I've already got code that would handle this.
A bigger issue is that the process would involve formatting that--correct me if I'm wrong--would not be used to post-process the book. The RTT is what is going to PG and whever wants to would start from that. There would be no PP at DP on the text.
If it is a rule that we use the whole process or none of it, there is no reason not to capture all the useful bits. P3 (or P2 if P3 skipped) to turn into an RTT for the diffs and anyone that wants to work from clean text (i.e. me), F2 (or F1 if F2 is skipped) output for you. I'm sure we could come up with something useful that falls under the title of PP.
Bowerbird put it succinctly and early: this is not going to happen because of DP and PG realities. We are still discussing it but we're getting to the same conclusion.
On reflection, I think that we can work with PG realities. We can improve the extant text through the errata system, we can provide something better as a buried project for those in the know and we can provide excellent final formatted versions externally based on these buried versions. Maybe we can even give Amazon the nod about the new versions -- that really would be consequential. Unfortunately I do think DP is necessary. I would love for Bowerbird to prove me wrong, but the response to his P&P "pilot" didn't fill me with confidence. We know that, technically at least, DP would work. It is a simple numbers game: there are 1000 odd people who _want_ to do the fastiduous painstaking work that, if we're honest, we want to avoid. That resource is pretty much unique. As far as I am concerned we are sunk if it is not forthcoming. So it comes down, finally, to the fact that I need to discuss all this with Louise. I therefore need a final piece of advice from this list. What is the best way to approach Louise with a proposal such as this? Cheers Jon
I received your proposal last week and decided that it deserved more than a quick 'yes' or 'no' answer from me, so it is on my "consider and reply soon" list. Might I suggest that a little patience could help lower the stress levels and promote a favorable working relationship? I see the denizens of the list have covered many of the things I've been contemplating. This discussion really has been surprisingly helpful in covering some issues that hadn't crossed my mind yet. Kind regards, /louise/ At 11:58 AM 9/27/2012, Jon Hurst wrote:
So it comes down, finally, to the fact that I need to discuss all this with Louise. I therefore need a final piece of advice from this list. What is the best way to approach Louise with a proposal such as this?
Cheers
Jon
____________________________________________________________ OVERSTOCK iPads: $33.93 Get New Apple iPads for $33.93! Limit One Per Customer. Get One Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/506513a49ebf713a331ffst04duc
participants (5)
-
Jon Hurst -
Louise Davies -
Robert Cicconetti -
Roger Frank -
traverso＠posso.dm.unipi.it