Re: [gutvol-d] etext 1842 Michael Sstrogoff
Forgive me, but I'm not real sure what the point of this was. strgf10.txt and strgf11.txt are both in the directory listing. However, like all our texts, the latest version of each format is listed in the catalog entry. This is completely normal. Is this an errata report on the HTML? You mention the first letter of each chapter. If you could make your message a little clearer, I or someone more knowledgable will do our best to figure out the answer. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "N Wolcott" <nwolcott@dsdial.net> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: [gutvol-d] etext 1842 Michael Sstrogoff Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:23:13 -0500
The catalogue currently indicates an 1842 -10 html and 1842-11 txt. Previously I had a 1842-10 txt which no longet appears. These appear to be all the same text, although 1842-10.txt and t842-11.txt differ in length by 2K bytes (change in header?). The source for all was apparently Judy Boss, and as there will be no errors in her text, unless she herself submitted it twice, all the texts should be identical. Since the html was converted from Boss's text there is the possibility of an error in the conversion. The html capitalizes the 1st letter of each chapter, not in the original etext. Otherwise a robot conversion. Too bad all the versions do not appear on the catalogue list.
N Wolcott nwolcott2@post.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Forgive me, but I'm not real sure what the point of this was.
strgf10.txt and strgf11.txt are both in the directory listing. However,
I think that both txt editions are identical. somehow no 10 got added twice with different boilerplate. Then the html is a version of the same. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Hutchinson" <joshua@hutchinson.net> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] etext 1842 Michael Sstrogoff like all our texts, the latest version of each format is listed in the catalog entry. This is completely normal.
Is this an errata report on the HTML? You mention the first letter of
each chapter.
If you could make your message a little clearer, I or someone more
knowledgable will do our best to figure out the answer.
Josh
----- Original Message ----- From: "N Wolcott" <nwolcott@dsdial.net> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org> Subject: [gutvol-d] etext 1842 Michael Sstrogoff Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:23:13 -0500
The catalogue currently indicates an 1842 -10 html and 1842-11 txt. Previously I had a 1842-10 txt which no longet appears. These appear to
the same text, although 1842-10.txt and t842-11.txt differ in length by 2K bytes (change in header?). The source for all was apparently Judy Boss, and as there will be no errors in her text, unless she herself submitted it twice, all the texts should be identical. Since the html was converted from Boss's text there is the possibility of an error in the conversion. The html capitalizes the 1st letter of each chapter, not in the original etext. Otherwise a robot conversion. Too bad all the versions do not appear on
be all the
catalogue list.
N Wolcott nwolcott2@post.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Well, why just speculate? Why not take a look at the texts? I've just downloaded both of them and from a quick look here's what I found: My difference checker choked on comparing the files. Line by line they are evidently very dissimilar. A look at the beginnings of the files shows that edition 11 has an opening quote mark that is missing is edition 10. Edition 11 has much of the text re-wraped, which was a good thing I suppose as edition 10 had lots of words broken at the end of a line (probably preserving same line-endings as in the original paper text). So yes, they are different, and edition 11 more closely matches currant PG formatting standards. (Although, personally, I would still change a few things in it.) Andrew On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, N Wolcott wrote:
I think that both txt editions are identical. somehow no 10 got added twice with different boilerplate. Then the html is a version of the same.
participants (3)
-
Andrew Sly -
Joshua Hutchinson -
N Wolcott