now keith wants me to "slow down"
keith said:
Slow down a bit BB,
oh dear sweet lord...
You are misunderstanding something here. I leave out the html part because that is a different matter which you can have out with don!
yeah, well, gee, keith, that's very unfortunate. because "the html part" was the on-topic part, the relevant part, the part we were talking about. so don was the one who was "misunderstanding". because -- as he admitted in his last message -- he had shifted the topic to his use of wordpress as a _storage_mechanism_ for existing html/css. just to remind people... i criticized lee's tool because it kicked in only _after_ the text had been marked up in .html, as if the markup process happened magically, when -- as i said -- markup is "the hard part". lee responded that word-processors can do a conversion to .html. (which i had granted already, but noted their markup is terrible.) then jim replied "you could use open office". open office, the software which proves that an open-source effort can create a program as bloated and complex as microsoft makes. yeah, great suggestion, jim. bzzzt. next!... and then don stepped in to suggest wordpress. and yes, wordpress will turn text into .html... but the output is a mess. so i called him on it. and then he responded that he wasn't actually using wordpress to mark up the text into .html. in other words, he admitted he was off-topic... (not directly, of course. but it was clear enough that i didn't even feel the need to rephrase it -- until now.)
It is the database part you do not understand.
i understood "the database part" fine, both in the part of its mechanics, and the part it was off-topic. and, as i said, as long as don is only talking about his _own_ use of wordpress, for his _own_ project, as a content-management-system, i'm fine with it.
The user need not know anything of the database to extract, use, and save files, in what ever format!
that's true, keith, but only on a very superficial basis. what if i want to "use" one of the files by submitting it to an exterior spell-check app? or grammar-check? what if i want to merge all of them into a single file? what if i want to do a specific search-and-replace on any files that contain graphics, but a different one on any files that do not contain graphics, except for the ones which contain front-matter, plus i need to do a separate search-and-replace on the reference section?
You see the database is first and firmly just a filing system for the files! Just like the OS is!
except those systems aren't "just like" each other by any stretch of the imagination, since the file system is understood implicitly by every average user because it is utilized every day in the course of normal practice, whereas only a tiny percentage of them know databases, and only a few of _those_ people can manipulate mysql. and it shouldn't even be necessary for me to explain that, because if you can't see a gulf that wide, you must be blind, or have your eyes closed, or have your head stuck somewhere.
So, if don wants to use a database (system) as a file(filing) system what is wrong with that.
i answered that question up above. for his own stuff, don can use any system he likes. why would i care, in the slightest? but if don wants to suggest a database approach for a system that has thousands of users who are digitizing thousands of books, all with one database, then i'm going to suggest that he rethink that model. which was a _different_ thread we had going here once. (but your comment here, keith, if off-topic to both.)
But, the people administering the site know it is there and glad they have it.
ok, and here is the crux. you guys are all happy to invent a site with "administrators". my aim is to create a workflow that average people grok, and can manipulate, if necessary, _without_ administrators. because, as d.p. has shown so clearly to those who can see, once you have a need for "administrators", the system gets trapped by the power-hungry and becomes nonresponsive...
Basically, Don will have a front end to his database, that will give you all you need and it will be just as easy (probably easier) than using your script based system.
that's what the "administrator" types always _promise_. "i'll make things easy for you, give you all you need..." but once you turn over your soul to them, it's too late.
On the other side I would have to learn how to use your scripts and how to find them, how to reprogram them to work for a particular book or text!
my word, keith, you seem to know _a_lot_ about something you know nothing about.
To quote Steve Jobs: "It just works!"
it's easy to quote steve jobs. any blooming idiot can do it! it's a heckuva lot harder to make something that just works. *** so, um, no, keith, i'm not going to "slow down". sorry, dude. however, i will kindly suggest that you speed up. to keep up. -bowerbird
then jim replied "you could use open office". open office, the software which proves that an open-source effort can create a program as bloated and complex as microsoft makes. yeah, great suggestion, jim. bzzzt. next!...
You obviously speak without actually having tried my suggestion. If you tried it as I previously described you would find that Open Office in HTML mode makes a decent WYSIWYG html editor that outputs decent HTML, unlike MSWord, which if you try to use it to edit HTML outputs horrible HTML.
Am 14.11.2011 um 23:11 schrieb Jim Adcock:
then jim replied "you could use open office". open office, the software which proves that an open-source effort can create a program as bloated and complex as microsoft makes. yeah, great suggestion, jim. bzzzt. next!...
You obviously speak without actually having tried my suggestion. If you tried it as I previously described you would find that Open Office in HTML mode makes a decent WYSIWYG html editor that outputs decent HTML, unlike MSWord, which if you try to use it to edit HTML outputs horrible HTML. I have not tried OO for HTML lately, but my experience is that it is still sub standard for me, and OO changes things I do not want changed when I have input it directly as source and go back to WYSIWYG editing. Not, nice. To much of a hassle.
regards Keith.
I have not tried OO for HTML lately, but my experience is that it is still sub standard for me, and OO changes things I do not want changed when I have input it directly as source and go back to WYSIWYG editing. Not, nice. To much of a hassle.
I don't use OO on a regular basis, but what I remember is that I had to go back a clean things up in the html a little bit -- but *nothing* like winword which just absolutely shreds everything... ..Just playing with OO now again, what I find is that OO "whacks" my style definitions, and renames my classes to derived class names of its own. But other than that it doesn't seem to introduce problems of its own. and these class/style problems can be fixed in a few minutes using any regex text editor. The way I get OO to "work" is to create via File/New/HTML Document a new HTML document in OO, go into View/HTML source mode, paste in my previous HTML work (if any) click View/HTML again to put it back into WYSIWYG mode (it requires a file save on the new HTML document) I can then edit in WYSIWYG mode without it munging stuff other than my style/class defintions, which can be fixed in the end using a std regex text editor. Now, I don't feel compelled to work in WYSIWYG mode -- but its there in OO for people who want it or feel that they need it.
On Monday, 14th November 2011 at 14:11:53 (GMT -0800), Jim Adcock wrote:
you would find that Open Office in HTML mode makes a decent WYSIWYG html editor that outputs decent HTML, unlike MSWord, which if you try to use it to edit HTML outputs horrible HTML.
Not if you choose "simplified HTML" as output in MS Word. I was shocked to find out how clean *that* HTML was; it almost passes W3C's validator check (in fact, passes it entirely after you manually adjust 2 or 3 details in the output). -- Yours, Alex. www.aboq.org [processed by "The Bat!", Version 4.2.44.2]
On Tue, November 15, 2011 3:05 am, a@aboq.org wrote:
On Monday, 14th November 2011 at 14:11:53 (GMT -0800), Jim Adcock wrote:
you would find that Open Office in HTML mode makes a decent WYSIWYG html editor that outputs decent HTML, unlike MSWord, which if you try to use it to edit HTML outputs horrible HTML.
Not if you choose "simplified HTML" as output in MS Word. I was shocked to find out how clean *that* HTML was; it almost passes W3C's validator check (in fact, passes it entirely after you manually adjust 2 or 3 details in the output).
It's been some years (>5) since I played with MS Word's HTML output, and I haven't looked at it since MS Word 2003 (I have to say that I absolutely /hate/ Word 2007 -- it seems that Microsoft Engineers are intentionally making the UI worse with every revision). But as you note, even the "simplified" HTML that MS Word produces is still not quite right. HTML Tidy has a --word-2000 option which was designed to remove the MS Word cruft from Word HTML files. Although it is somewhat counter-intuitive, I discovered that Tidy was not as good at cleaning the "simplified" output as it was at cleaning the "horribly complex" output, because the indicators that Tidy used to detect "bad" HTML had been removed. Again, it's been many years since I went down that road, but it may be that using "horribly complex" Word output and then running it through Tidy may be a better option than using "simplified" Word output.
Not if you choose "simplified HTML" as output in MS Word. I was shocked to find out how clean *that* HTML was; it almost passes W3C's validator check (in fact, passes it entirely after you manually adjust 2 or 3 details in the output).
Not sure what you are doing but my 2010 version of MS Word doesn't have a "simplified HTML" output, what it does have is a "filtered" HTML output is that what you mean? What I find in winword is: I take an existing "clean" HTML document, and open it in winword. I touch *nothing* I now save that document using 'Save As "Filtered HTML"' I open the resulting HTML in a text editor, and what I see is: * Winword has totally thrown away my style definitions. * Winword has totally thrown away all my class markings. * Winword has gratuitously marked "everything" with its "class=MsoNormal" class instead -- and then put in inline style markings everywhere in place of what were previously "reasonable" class definitions. * WInword has gratuitously wrapped "everything" inside its "<span lang=EN>" markings -- To which I say "yuck!" -- OO does much better than this. Or have you figured out some better way to use winword on HTML ?
Hi BB, Am 14.11.2011 um 20:00 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
keith said:
Slow down a bit BB,
oh dear sweet lord...
You are misunderstanding something here. I leave out the html part because that is a different matter which you can have out with don!
yeah, well, gee, keith, that's very unfortunate.
because "the html part" was the on-topic part, the relevant part, the part we were talking about. I did realize that the HTML part was your main objection. Yet, we been "there and back again" far to many times on formats and I could give no new points nor counter points, so I decided not to discuss this point of use of HTML further.
so don was the one who was "misunderstanding".
because -- as he admitted in his last message -- he had shifted the topic to his use of wordpress as a _storage_mechanism_ for existing html/css. Whether the subject/thread was hijack was not my fault. Of course I could have change the subject.
If I were mean I could accuse you of the same as my post had nothing to do with HTML and do not want to go into it for said above reasons. Though I have to admit you started a new thread. So, that ball is yours. [snip, snip]
what if i want to "use" one of the files by submitting it to an exterior spell-check app? or grammar-check?
what if i want to merge all of them into a single file?
what if i want to do a specific search-and-replace on any files that contain graphics, but a different one on any files that do not contain graphics, except for the ones which contain front-matter, plus i need to do a separate search-and-replace on the reference section? Well, I could take your general position on hypothetical systems. We really, do not it full scale or how far it is developed no any of its design parameters.
Since you ask. Here are my thoughts. It could be as easy as check out what you want, do whatever you want with it and submit it back. Just the same as I would have to do when I would use your system if its repository was stored on a server. Of course you could allow everybody to convolute the server you are using, but I do not think you would allow that and I would highly advise against such a practice. The only difference is that the user would have to use your scripts instead of interacting with the front end of a database.
You see the database is first and firmly just a filing system for the files! Just like the OS is!
except those systems aren't "just like" each other by any stretch of the imagination, since the file system is understood implicitly by every average user because it is utilized every day in the course of normal practice,
OH, My Gosh! BOY are you wrong on this point. The average user knows finale sticks about the file system of their OS. They know have to use the GUI, which is just a front end! They know nothing of the file system whether it is a flat file system or not. On Windows, how many know which registry enters they can change for changing how the system works with file types, or which ones are set when programs are installed into the system? How many know that when their system gets sluggish(or even notice it) that they have to defragment their drives and do they know where to find it. I know a lot of average users and they keep coming to me a Mac person for help and to repeatedly show them! How many know how to mount servers, use ssh, etc.. Ask them what it means to mount a server and what happens when they do. The list goes on and on.
whereas only a tiny percentage of them know databases, and only a few of _those_ people can manipulate mysql. LIKE I SAUD there is/should be a FRONT END to the database which is just as easy to use as the the GUI of an OS, actually easier because of the small feature set it needs to support.
and it shouldn't even be necessary for me to explain that, because if you can't see a gulf that wide, you must be blind, or have your eyes closed, or have your head stuck somewhere. If I were to use your system of scripts you would have to explain to me what scripts do what and I have to learn where they are stored, which parameters they take. There is no free ride! You always have to learn something. Even if it just the difference between http and https!
So, if don wants to use a database (system) as a file(filing) system what is wrong with that.
i answered that question up above. Not actually, just your misconception of want the average user know and does.
for his own stuff, don can use any system he likes. why would i care, in the slightest?
but if don wants to suggest a database approach for a system that has thousands of users who are digitizing thousands of books, all with one database, then i'm going to suggest that he rethink that model. Here I would partially agree with you!! ;-) I would use a couple of database interacting to gather with each other.
which was a _different_ thread we had going here once.
(but your comment here, keith, if off-topic to both.)
But, the people administering the site know it is there and glad they have it.
ok, and here is the crux.
you guys are all happy to invent a site with "administrators".
my aim is to create a workflow that average people grok, and can manipulate, if necessary, _without_ administrators. Tisk, tisk Tisk! You are actually, going to allow the average user full access to you server! I DO NOT BELIEVE you are THAT STUPID!
With administrator I mean the administrator of a site and/or the database. I believe the administrators of the millions of sites out there, would not think that they are not needed and their sites do not work.
because, as d.p. has shown so clearly to those who can see, once you have a need for "administrators", the system gets trapped by the power-hungry and becomes nonresponsive...
With administrator I mean the administrator of a site and/or the database. I believe the administrators of the millions of sites out there, would not think that they are not needed and their sites do not work. I was not think of administrators in the sense that they control what texts are use and not and how the text go through the workflow the way dp works.
Basically, Don will have a front end to his database, that will give you all you need and it will be just as easy (probably easier) than using your script based system.
that's what the "administrator" types always _promise_. It depends on their skill and fore site and willingness to make changes.
"i'll make things easy for you, give you all you need…" The same is true of your scripts! Sorry, Your argument does not bite.
but once you turn over your soul to them, it's too late. Heh, I burning in hell any way so they have to fight the devil to get mine!
On the other side I would have to learn how to use your scripts and how to find them, how to reprogram them to work for a particular book or text!
my word, keith, you seem to know _a_lot_ about something you know nothing about. Well, I no names, where to find them, nor how to use them! So, they are just as OBSCURE to me as any database system to you and I am not they average user! STALEMATE!
To quote Steve Jobs: "It just works!"
it's easy to quote steve jobs. any blooming idiot can do it! it's a heckuva lot harder to make something that just works.
Agreed, but I do make programs for others and they are very happy with them because they just work. Once and a while I have to add a new feature that they had not thought of, but generally I am ahead of them
***
so, um, no, keith, i'm not going to "slow down". sorry, dude.
Maybe one last thought that has occurred to that the average user need not know anything about databases to use them.: There are a lot of average uses out there using personal finance programs, well guess those programs use a database. You got a Kindle, Ereader, iPad, guess they use a database system. Use iTunes, right it too uses a database system. My, My, My all those average users using databases and they no nothing about how those databases are designed nor what their structure is like. According to you they should know an awful lot about them. Just for the record iTunes uses an associative database. Do you know what that is? Does the average users know what that is? Here is another database system that is accessed. When you go get or look for books on the PG site!!! I do not even know what kind of database system the are using! Amazing a non average user using a database and not even entering a single SQL or what ever. Amazing, is it not.
however, i will kindly suggest that you speed up. to keep up.
No, I think my last comments should be enough that you should rethink your position about the use databases and whatever speed is good for you. regards Keith.
participants (6)
-
a＠aboq.org -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
James Adcock -
Jim Adcock
-
Keith J. Schultz -
Lee Passey