View Single Post
Old 01-31-2024, 09:25 AM   #9
Turtle91
A Hairy Wizard
Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Turtle91 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Turtle91's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,117
Karma: 18727091
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Charleston, SC today
Device: iPhone 11/X/6/iPad 1,2,Air & Air Pro/Surface Pro/Kindle PW & Fire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karellen View Post
Nice clear explanations in your second post. I'm definitely in the "Keep the tags simple" camp and tend to default to naked tags, though I know some members believe that is a throwback to the 90's? (I don't really know what that means so it'd be nice if someone explains why that is. I **think** it was DNSB that said it, could be wrong...)
I think that came around when the external css stylesheet made its debut in '96. The idea is that all styling goes on the stylesheet and then you only need to reference what style you need. "Naked tags", at the time, would be the 'old way' and therefore 'bad'.

As is normal when a new process gets started, zealots will push it HARD. So a naked tag <p> would be wrong, where a <p class="normal-paragraph"> would be more 'proper'. That is also the time when a lot of these software suites were created...like InDesign in '99... They put classes on everything!

As is also normal after a few years of getting used to a new process, fixes are made and a new balance point is found. Except the software had already been written, and it works, so why spend the money to change it?

A 'normal paragraph' is what makes up 98.7% of a chapter. Why have <p class="normal-paragraph"> when it is easier just to have that as a naked tag <p>?? When cleaning up a book's code, that is what I consider 'low hanging fruit', easy to fix, and makes a big improvement in readability.

Spoiler:

Which one is cleaner and easier to read/edit?
Code:
<p style="text-indent:1.2em; text-align:left; font-weight:normal; font-size:1em; ">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p style="text-indent:1.2em; text-align:left; font-weight:normal; font-size:1em; ">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p style="text-indent:1.2em; text-align:left; font-weight:normal; font-size:1em; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:red">This is a red, underlined, italic paragraph.</p>
<p style="text-indent:1.2em; text-align:left; font-weight:normal; font-size:1em; ">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p style="text-indent:1.2em; text-align:left; font-weight:normal; font-size:1em; ">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
-OR-
Code:
css:
p.normal-paragraph {text-indent:1.2em; text-align:left; font-weight:normal; font-size:1em;}
p.red {color:red}
p.underline {underline}
p.italic {italic}

html:
<p class="normal-paragraph">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p class="normal-paragraph">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p class="normal-paragraph red italic underline">This is a red, underlined, italic paragraph.</p>
<p class="normal-paragraph">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p class="normal-paragraph">This is a normal paragraph.</p>
-OR-
Code:
css:
p {text-indent:1.2em; text-align:left; font-weight:normal; font-size:1em;}
p.emphasized {font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:red}

html:
<p>This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p>This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p class="emphasized">This is an emphasized paragraph.</p>
<p>This is a normal paragraph.</p>
<p>This is a normal paragraph.</p>



Quote:
Originally Posted by Karellen View Post
That Printer's key, I thought that was the Release number or print run. So if the "1" is visible, then the pbook is the first release / edition / print run; "2" is the second print run etc. Is that not the case?
You are correct, it is an edition, or printing run, etc. My understanding was that, originally, the typesetters kept the plates(??) for a book and when a 2nd printing was needed they would simply chisel off the number of the last run, leaving: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 _

That is obviously not needed in today's eBook world where you can simply change the "edition" or "version" by updating the copyright page with something as simple as "V2.5" or "Second Edition".

Last edited by Turtle91; 01-31-2024 at 09:29 AM.
Turtle91 is online now   Reply With Quote