Re: !@! Re: [gutvol-d] Moving and Removing eBooks
Michael Hart writes:
This is why we do not "Move or Remove" eBooks from the more visble locations to the less visible.
We do everytime we make a new edition of a book; we move the old edition from the default link to something you'd have to dig around in the directory tree does. Darn good thing, too. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, D. Starner wrote:
Michael Hart writes:
This is why we do not "Move or Remove" eBooks from the more visble locations to the less visible.
We do everytime we make a new edition of a book; we move the old edition from the default link to something you'd have to dig around in the directory tree does. Darn good thing, too.
This is where multiple files can make it interesting. I just finished dealing with an email from someone pointing out that for a certain Jules Verne title (#1842) the catalog showed a version 11 plain text and zipped text file only. Someone had produced an html file as well for the 10 version, but as the catalog will generally show only the most recent version, it was not listed. So in this case, hading the older file meant that people may not have been aware they could get the same text in html as well (although, presumably, in a less accurate reading) Andrew
Andrew Sly writes:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, D. Starner wrote:
Michael Hart writes:
This is why we do not "Move or Remove" eBooks from the more visble locations to the less visible.
We do everytime we make a new edition of a book; we move the old edition from the default link to something you'd have to dig around in the directory tree does. Darn good thing, too.
This is where multiple files can make it interesting. I just finished dealing with an email from someone pointing out that for a certain Jules Verne title (#1842) the catalog showed a version 11 plain text and zipped text file only. Someone had produced an html file as well for the 10 version, but as the catalog will generally show only the most recent version, it was not listed. So in this case, hading the older file meant that people may not have been aware they could get the same text in html as well (although, presumably, in a less accurate reading)
Or it could be an error that was present in the version 10 etext that was not present in the version 10 html. I reported a problem a few months ago in an HTML version of a book where a phrase was missing, but was in the etext version. It's been fixed, but I don't see whether it's marked as a different version.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Andrew Sly wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, D. Starner wrote:
Michael Hart writes:
This is why we do not "Move or Remove" eBooks from the more visble locations to the less visible.
We do everytime we make a new edition of a book; we move the old edition from the default link to something you'd have to dig around in the directory tree does. Darn good thing, too.
This is where multiple files can make it interesting. I just finished dealing with an email from someone pointing out that for a certain Jules Verne title (#1842) the catalog showed a version 11 plain text and zipped text file only. Someone had produced an html file as well for the 10 version, but as the catalog will generally show only the most recent version, it was not listed. So in this case, hading the older file meant that people may not have been aware they could get the same text in html as well (although, presumably, in a less accurate reading)
This is why the original catalog had an entry for each version, and each version was kept in the same directory as the others: the readers could just pick the ones with the highest numbers to get the ones with the most corrections, and could also see the entire history of the eBook after initial release. mh
participants (4)
-
Andrew Sly -
Bruce Albrecht -
D. Starner -
Michael Hart