Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
i'm not gonna get trapped in this "debate" again. i'm not. i'm just here to tell it like it is, this one time, and then i'm done with this stupid topic. when a book is released as a formless blob, and people have no option for standardizing that blob, they'll find that it is difficult to have discussions about that book, because they will be unable to point to specific places. if books are formless blobs, this problem is inevitable. people will invent forms of "standardizing" the blobs, and they will utilize various tools that allow them to "point", but they will eventually realize that page-numbers are a pretty good idea, with a long-standing history and excellent familiarity, so that's how the issue will resolve. and this answer is just as inevitable as the problem was. people who just want to read a book, and who have no need to discuss the book with other human beings, will be happy with a formless blob that allows them to render the book (either on-screen or printed-out) in a way that accords with their preferences. that is great. but people who have a desire to discuss the book with other people will quickly come to an agreement that they need to have a standardized format to aid dialog. the "canonical" version -- with "canonical pagination" -- will serve as this standardized format. that is inevitable. page-numbers are most decidedly _not_ "old-fashioned". print-on-demand machines have already slashed the price of one-off books to a-penny-a-page, so we have _not_ seen the end of printed books. indeed, we are like to see the number of printed-books _increase_ in coming decades. (their percentage will dwindle, compared to e-books, but the total _number_ of printed-books will increase, steadily. not only are they convenient, they are tangible souvenirs. if a book is _meaningful_ to you, it'll be a badge of pride that you paid a few dollars for your own physical version, one that is unique to you, not just a copy of a digital file. it's the rough equivalent of buying a t-shirt at a concert.) so the world will continue to be awash in printed-books. and yes, many of these books will be "one-offs" where their pagination is different from every other "one-off". but many of them will utilize "the canonical pagination" because their readers will _want_ the "standard" edition. (for one, it'll be easier to prove that it's "the real thing", and hasn't been corrupted in some nefarious fashion.) that's the way things will turn out. mark my words, folks. because i'm not gonna tell you again. you are too dense. -bowerbird
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:22 PM, <Bowerbird@aol.com> wrote:
i'm not gonna get trapped in this "debate" again. i'm not.
i'm just here to tell it like it is, this one time, and then i'm done with this stupid topic.
when a book is released as a formless blob, and people have no option for standardizing that blob, they'll find that it is difficult to have discussions about that book, because they will be unable to point to specific places.
if books are formless blobs, this problem is inevitable.
people will invent forms of "standardizing" the blobs, and they will utilize various tools that allow them to "point", but they will eventually realize that page-numbers are a pretty good idea, with a long-standing history and excellent familiarity, so that's how the issue will resolve.
and this answer is just as inevitable as the problem was.
people who just want to read a book, and who have no need to discuss the book with other human beings, will be happy with a formless blob that allows them to render the book (either on-screen or printed-out) in a way that accords with their preferences. that is great.
but people who have a desire to discuss the book with other people will quickly come to an agreement that they need to have a standardized format to aid dialog.
the "canonical" version -- with "canonical pagination" -- will serve as this standardized format. that is inevitable.
page-numbers are most decidedly _not_ "old-fashioned".
In fact, page numbers are relatively new in the span of history!! Think about scrolls with paragraph numbers on top (e.g. religious texts).
print-on-demand machines have already slashed the price of one-off books to a-penny-a-page, so we have _not_ seen the end of printed books. indeed, we are like to see the number of printed-books _increase_ in coming decades.
(their percentage will dwindle, compared to e-books, but the total _number_ of printed-books will increase, steadily. not only are they convenient, they are tangible souvenirs. if a book is _meaningful_ to you, it'll be a badge of pride that you paid a few dollars for your own physical version, one that is unique to you, not just a copy of a digital file. it's the rough equivalent of buying a t-shirt at a concert.)
so the world will continue to be awash in printed-books.
and yes, many of these books will be "one-offs" where their pagination is different from every other "one-off".
but many of them will utilize "the canonical pagination" because their readers will _want_ the "standard" edition. (for one, it'll be easier to prove that it's "the real thing", and hasn't been corrupted in some nefarious fashion.)
that's the way things will turn out. mark my words, folks. because i'm not gonna tell you again. you are too dense.
-bowerbird
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
-- My [Blog <http://bit.ly/f78b3u>] [Facebook <http://on.fb.me/gXRMh3>] [ Twitter <http://bit.ly/f4hRpq>] [LinkedIn <http://linkd.in/g3VevR>] and [Ebook Publishing Platform <http://signup.mobnotate.com/>]
if books are formless blobs, this problem is inevitable.
Books ARE formless blobs. Jane Austen P&P is available in 4,800+ formats from Amazon today alone, none of which agree on page numbers. Page numbers are hopeless to use as cites.
JIm, Like I said you evidently, do not get the point or know how citation works in academic life! I doubt very much that their are 4.800+ editions! 4.800 offerings, possible. The question is who is listing the total pages in the books! The total number of pages is irrelevant in citing. Could be a factor if the citation is of inferior quality and might help in identifying a particular edition. regards Keith. Am 21.04.2011 um 00:21 schrieb Jim Adcock:
if books are formless blobs, this problem is inevitable.
Books ARE formless blobs. Jane Austen P&P is available in 4,800+ formats from Amazon today alone, none of which agree on page numbers. Page numbers are hopeless to use as cites.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Page numbers aren't the only method of marking off measurable sections of text. They just make the most sense when you're dealing with physical materials that are laid out in page form. When books were nothing but rolls of parchment tied up with ribbon, page numbers were not the method used to refer to passages of text. Therefore, when page numbers are meaningless (as with etext versions), when it becomes bothersome enough to folks, a standard method of referring to position in text will be agreeed upon, and it may or may not be page numbers, but stating uncatagorically that it *will* be page numbers is just silly. Sure, page numbers are what folks are most familiar with now, but I doubt the middle ages (before printing presses existed) the monks who copied texts used such concepts. So, something will grow out of the need for marking places, but I'm not convinced it will be page numbers. (bookmarks aren't just used for keeping your place in a physical book anymore) There's nothing keeping the publisher from inserting bookmarks in their digital copies, then folks can just refer to bookmark 8, or bookmark 27 when discussing material, thereby removing the need for page numbers, since bookmarks can occur anywhere the publisher wants them. Of course, you'd need to distinguish between publisher bookmarks, and customer ones, but that's rather trivial.
As I have been saying for decades, there are no pages in eBooks, therefore, other than just plain Ludditeness, laziness, and what passes for Conservatism today, there is no reason for them. mh On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Travis Siegel wrote:
Page numbers aren't the only method of marking off measurable sections of text. They just make the most sense when you're dealing with physical materials that are laid out in page form. When books were nothing but rolls of parchment tied up with ribbon, page numbers were not the method used to refer to passages of text. Therefore, when page numbers are meaningless (as with etext versions), when it becomes bothersome enough to folks, a standard method of referring to position in text will be agreeed upon, and it may or may not be page numbers, but stating uncatagorically that it *will* be page numbers is just silly. Sure, page numbers are what folks are most familiar with now, but I doubt the middle ages (before printing presses existed) the monks who copied texts used such concepts. So, something will grow out of the need for marking places, but I'm not convinced it will be page numbers. (bookmarks aren't just used for keeping your place in a physical book anymore) There's nothing keeping the publisher from inserting bookmarks in their digital copies, then folks can just refer to bookmark 8, or bookmark 27 when discussing material, thereby removing the need for page numbers, since bookmarks can occur anywhere the publisher wants them. Of course, you'd need to distinguish between publisher bookmarks, and customer ones, but that's rather trivial.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Travis Siegel <tsiegel@softcon.us> wrote:
Page numbers aren't the only method of marking off measurable sections of
text. They just make the most sense when you're dealing with physical materials that are laid out in page form. When books were nothing but rolls of parchment tied up with ribbon, page numbers were not the method used to refer to passages of text. Why not? And what do you suppose was the method then? Most of the scrolls I've seen are written in pages in this format: O---------------------------------O | ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- \ | ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- / | ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- \ O-----------------------------------O and something like page numbers would have been almost necessary with only linear access.
Folks on this thread might be interested in what others are doing to reference/deep-link electronic documents. - http://bit.ly/hbz2s0 (from NYTimes) - http://bit.ly/fBBpky (documenting the state of the world few years back) Would love to hear what you guys run into as the best practice. I suspect we don't need something perfect. "good enough" reference that could point readers to approximate part of the text could be sufficient. --Ricky
Hi All, Travis is quite right! "Ancient" -texts were not cited by page numbers! How could they! More often just a reference to the text or speech was used! Even today references to such "texts" page numbers are not used. If you have a cite that has page number it is to a book that contains a transcript! regards Keith Am 23.04.2011 um 19:14 schrieb don kretz:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Travis Siegel <tsiegel@softcon.us> wrote:
Page numbers aren't the only method of marking off measurable sections of text. They just make the most sense when you're dealing with physical materials that are laid out in page form. When books were nothing but rolls of parchment tied up with ribbon, page numbers were not the method used to refer to passages of text.
Why not? And what do you suppose was the method then?
Most of the scrolls I've seen are written in pages in this format:
O---------------------------------O | ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- \ | ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- / | ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- \ O-----------------------------------O
and something like page numbers would have been almost necessary with only linear access.
participants (7)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
don kretz -
Jim Adcock -
Keith J. Schultz -
Michael S. Hart -
Ricky Wong -
Travis Siegel