Just a quick check on this one (and a few other reposts I've seen lately): is it no longer Gutenberg policy to require a plain vanilla ASCII version, even if the text is in English? (I gather the requirement was dropped a while ago for non-English works, since the ASCII often isn't very useful, but it generally is for English versions even if the occasional stray accent mark gets dropped or an mdash changed into hyphens.) For what it's worth, the policy is still mentioned at various points on the Gutenberg site, such as http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:General_FAQ#G.17._Why_is_Project_Gut... Unicode is pretty common nowadays, but there are still sometimes problems with it on older systems, or when files are interchanged over the network or across systems with different assumptions about character encoding. So ASCII's nice to have if it doesn't represent a significantly degraded format. (It's possible to automatically produce an ASCII version from a Unicode UTF-8 file, using standard normalization, so it shouldn't require much extra work.) John On 01/31/2013 04:59 PM, David Price wrote:
Corrections have been made in this file and it has been updated with the new header, removed from its old address in etext96, and filed under the new directory system. A picture and Unicode has been provided.
Rasselas, by Samuel Johnson 652 [Editor: Henry Morley] [Subtitle: Prince of Abyssinia] [Link: http://www.gutenberg.org/6/5/652 ] [Updated edition of: etext96/rslas10h.htm] [Files: 652-0.txt; 652-h.htm]
All the best, David, England, cool, breezy and very damp