re: Re: [gutvol-d] Indexing Editors, etc.
marevalo said:
it would be great to have the complete bibliographical record of the book (or books) used as source for the digital edition
anne said:
Or at least the date of original publication and the name of the original publisher.
this is a recurring request, of course. it might be interesting to have a public forum, like a wiki, where requests like these could be made, so we could see the cumulation. as it is, i get the distinct impression these go in one ear and out the other, and we go along in ignorant bliss thinking that all of our users are completely happy... -bowerbird
marevalo said:
it would be great to have the complete bibliographical record of the book (or books) used as source for the digital edition
anne said:
Or at least the date of original publication and the name of the original publisher.
Bowerbird said:
this is a recurring request, of course.
it might be interesting to have a public forum, like a wiki, where requests like these could be made, so we could see the cumulation.
as it is, i get the distinct impression these go in one ear and out the other, and we go along in ignorant bliss thinking that all of our users are completely happy...
Agreed. I believe PG should change their policy (if they haven't already) and for all new titles to include the full citation of the source (or sources if someone made a composite using two or more differing editions, which btw I believe PG should discourage.) I surmise the reason for the past (and I assume current) policy of obfuscating the source had to do with fear of copyright litigation -- in essence "providing information to the enemy." However, since nearly all the texts produced today are from scans which are preserved, it is no longer possible to obfuscate the source. Anyway, there are a few other arguments in support of full source citation, including the most important: assuring integrity of the text to the original source. This is not a trivial issue. Jon Noring
Friday, October 1, 2004, 8:42:05 PM, Jon wrote:
I believe PG should change their policy (if they haven't already) and for all new titles to include the full citation of the source (or sources if someone made a composite using two or more differing editions, which btw I believe PG should discourage.) ... Anyway, there are a few other arguments in support of full source citation, including the most important: assuring integrity of the text to the original source. This is not a trivial issue.
I agree too and suggest that may be this information could be kept in a XML format conforming some DTD (PG own) so that the book can be very easily processed or catalogued. But this is going too far from the plain text idea PG was built and still succesfuly lives on. -- Skippi mailto:skip@nextra.sk
If the original source you use turns out to have errors, as nearly all books do, do you want the errors preserved? mh On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Skippi wrote:
Friday, October 1, 2004, 8:42:05 PM, Jon wrote:
I believe PG should change their policy (if they haven't already) and for all new titles to include the full citation of the source (or sources if someone made a composite using two or more differing editions, which btw I believe PG should discourage.) ... Anyway, there are a few other arguments in support of full source citation, including the most important: assuring integrity of the text to the original source. This is not a trivial issue.
I agree too and suggest that may be this information could be kept in a XML format conforming some DTD (PG own) so that the book can be very easily processed or catalogued. But this is going too far from the plain text idea PG was built and still succesfuly lives on.
-- Skippi mailto:skip@nextra.sk
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
If the original source you use turns out to have errors, as nearly all books do, do you want the errors preserved?
One of the advantages of an XML (or similar) "master version" is that we can have our cake and eat it too. The MASTER can capture the mistake AND the correction; a separate process can render either or both in various formats, e.g. HTML with little "tool tips" and of course plain text (optionally with or without "errors", anachronistic spellings, etc.). Three examples: <alt why="modern" what="today">to-day</alt> <alt why="typo" what="spelling">speeling</alt> <alt why="intentional" what="for">f8r</alt> As an example of the third case, Twain's CT Yankee includes a "newspaper article" full of "typos" that are intended to illustrate an amateur job of typesetting. NOTE that the xml tags and attributes are just made up on the fly. I'm NOT advocating any specific tags. Also, I think it's better to start with something rather than wait for a perfect design. It's generally easy to transform from one xml into another, e.g. to (or from): <archaic modern="today">to-day</archaic> <typo correct="spelling">speeling</typo> <intentional index="for">f8r</intentional> -- Scott Practical Software Innovation (tm), http://ProductArchitect.com/
Skippi <skip@nextra.sk> writes:
I agree too and suggest that may be this information could be kept in a XML format conforming some DTD (PG own) so that the book can be very easily processed or catalogued.
It would be wise to go with the TEI DTD and, actually, soem support for the TEI DTD is already available. Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> writes:
If the original source you use turns out to have errors, as nearly all books do, do you want the errors preserved?
Sure. At least, say what you changed and why. Also I strongly recommend to keep the original page references; you can hide them, but it should be possibile to make them visible the user is interested in them. This could be done using a simple CSS mechanism. -- | ,__o | _-\_<, http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)
participants (6)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Jon Noring -
Karl Eichwalder -
Michael Hart -
Scott Lawton -
Skippi