Re: why the plain-text format is the most useful format for eliciting beauty (and more)

jim said:
I have not heard a reasonable rational why PG REQUIRES me to submit BOTH an HTML AND a PG TXT file if what I as a volunteer really want to submit is just an HTML file. If I were allowed to just submit an HTML file then I could reasonably encode MOST of what I as a transcriber would like to transcribe, and I could avoid the abuse that I currently receive from Bowerbird when I don't put in the extraneous marks and spaces and smiley faces not found in the author's work but which Bowerbird would like to see in the PG TXT in order to support his pet theories about how the input file format and the rendered file format need to be one and the same thing. In turn Bowerbird could use his time and energies in a positive manner transcribing my HTML input format file into any particular flavor of PG TXT output file format that Bowerbird likes and can and will in turn pat himself on the back for, rather than abusing me of efforts that I didn't want to have to do in the first place.
i won't let you bait me into any more of this nonsense, jim. everyone paying attention -- and probably even most of those _not_ paying attention -- knows that i refuted your points deftly, and completely, except for those which i myself have already made. (but, um, gee, thanks for all your _support_ on those matters, jim; having you agreeing with them really bolstered up their credibility.) you come here looking for a master format. i handed you one. but because it doesn't look the way you thought it _would_ look, you don't recognize that it's exactly what you were looking for... there's a certain bit of humorous irony in all that... -bowerbird

but because it doesn't look the way you thought it _would_ look, you don't recognize that it's exactly what you were looking for...
I reject it not only because its ugly, doesn't have any decent tools to support it, isn't supported or advocated by anyone world-wide except an army of one, and will not be used by the other volunteers in any case, but more importantly because I find cases on a daily basis cases of things I need to encode as a transcriber where I say "well obviously there would be no good way to address *this* issue using Bowerbird's scheme." And then, having established one has to transcribe into an ugly format, which I certainly think html, xml, and TEI are also, one comes rapidly to the conclusion that there is no way that an input transcription format and an output rendered file format *ought* to be one and the same thing because to do so needlessly subjects the end reader to unnecessary ugliness. Not to mention that PG is rendering to 80 different output file formats in any case so why *insist* that there be only one input transcription format "holy grail" in the first place?
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird@aol.com
-
James Adcock