Sigil 0.7.1 Released

[Prestidigitweeze]

Two questions:

1. What's the last stable version that will work with 10.6?
2. 7.1 works with Mountain Lion, correct?

[PeterT]

Sonething tells me it will be this build from pdurrant

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I have compiled Sigil 0.6.2 for Mac OS X 10.5 and later (64-bit Intel only).

It can be downloaded from my google docs folder here.

It launches on my Mac OS X 10.6.8 system.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by PeterT

Something tells me it will be this build from pdurrant.

Appears to work perfectly (but so did the previous build); thanks for that.

[st_albert]

Having finally had the opportunity to put 0.7.1 to use on a real-world case (in my world, that is) I have come across a couple of opportunities for new features.

(Please hold your applause )

1) I was working on an epub with two stylesheets, which I combined into one and then deleted the superfluous style sheet, using the book browser (right-click, delete). It would be nice if Sigil could then delete from all the html files the reference to the now non-existent stylesheet. (Granted this is trivial with S/R, so not a biggie.)

2) Also noted that when validating stylesheets, and there are 2 stylesheets (or more?) sigil opens 2 (or more?) browser windows to do the checks. That was confusing at first, as I couldn't tell which browser window corresponded to which spreadsheet. Not sure how best to attack this, but one way would be to not automatically submit the sheet, but rather force the user to click the "check" button, thus submitting them one at a time. Since you can see the code in the code window, you should be able to tell which sheet was which as you submit them. To be elegant, this should only apply when there is > 1 stylesheet. But since Sigil now creates a special TOC stylesheet, this is not a rare occurrence. )

Upon reflection, though, probably if there were errors in either stylesheet, the W3C response, something that rarely happens here , one should be able to distinguish which stylesheet it was. Ergo not a big concern either.

And again, I'll urge that the verification be against CSS level 3 even though epub spec says CSS level 2.1, since it prevents a bunch of b!7ching about (e.g.) font declarations that work perfectly well in epub. If I (theoretically) were to make an error in a CSS file, it would most likely involve punctuation or malformed syntax, rather than inclusion of an unsupported feature. So for me, validating against CSS 3 is most helpful. Granted it isn't the perfect solution, though.

Thanks for all your hard work! If the above is all I can think of for modifications, you have come light years towards Valloric's vision for Sigil. He should be proud of you!

[theducks]

Originally Posted by st_albert

Having finally had the opportunity to put 0.7.1 to use on a real-world case (in my world, that is) I have come across a couple of opportunities for new features.

(Please hold your applause )

1) I was working on an epub with two stylesheets, which I combined into one and then deleted the superfluous style sheet, using the book browser (right-click, delete). It would be nice if Sigil could then delete from all the html files the reference to the now non-existent stylesheet. (Granted this is trivial with S/R, so not a biggie.)

2) Also noted that when validating stylesheets, and there are 2 stylesheets (or more?) sigil opens 2 (or more?) browser windows to do the checks. That was confusing at first, as I couldn't tell which browser window corresponded to which spreadsheet. Not sure how best to attack this, but one way would be to not automatically submit the sheet, but rather force the user to click the "check" button, thus submitting them one at a time. Since you can see the code in the code window, you should be able to tell which sheet was which as you submit them. To be elegant, this should only apply when there is > 1 stylesheet. But since Sigil now creates a special TOC stylesheet, this is not a rare occurrence. )

Upon reflection, though, probably if there were errors in either stylesheet, the W3C response, something that rarely happens here , one should be able to distinguish which stylesheet it was. Ergo not a big concern either.

And again, I'll urge that the verification be against CSS level 3 even though epub spec says CSS level 2.1, since it prevents a bunch of b!7ching about (e.g.) font declarations that work perfectly well in epub. If I (theoretically) were to make an error in a CSS file, it would most likely involve punctuation or malformed syntax, rather than inclusion of an unsupported feature. So for me, validating against CSS 3 is most helpful. Granted it isn't the perfect solution, though.

Thanks for all your hard work! If the above is all I can think of for modifications, you have come light years towards Valloric's vision for Sigil. He should be proud of you!

IIRC
To delete a stylesheet referenced in sections, needed to be done before you delete the sheet.
Select Sections to be affected: (in the Book Browser)right-click: select Link Style sheet. Select only those you want to remain linked.

Now you should be able to delete the unused sheet (you can verify unused status by looking at the 'Reports'

[user_none]

Originally Posted by st_albert

And again, I'll urge that the verification be against CSS level 3 even though epub spec says CSS level 2.1, since it prevents a bunch of b!7ching about (e.g.) font declarations that work perfectly well in epub.

There is a difference between something working and something being valid. Audio and video comes to mind...

[st_albert]

Originally Posted by user_none

There is a difference between something working and something being valid. Audio and video comes to mind...

Alas, I can't argue with that, and there's the corrolary wherein the user goes all grumpy-cat because, "Hey, it PASSED W3C validation, but it STILL doesn't WORK!"

::sigh:: Oh, well...

[mrmikel]

I have a small quibble with 7.1. It will not add Guderian’s or other apostrophe word to the dictionary by right click but it will add it in the dialog box in preferences.

I am including the epub I am working on, since I think it may be smart apostrophes that are causing the problem.

[crutledge]

How many levels of UNDO are in Sigil?

[exaltedwombat]

Don't rely on there being any.

[theducks]

Undo also may disappear after any Save (which I do frequently )

[mrmikel]

As you probably already know, there is no undo of replace all, the one time when you want it most desperately, SIGH.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by mrmikel

As you probably already know, there is no undo of replace all, the one time when you want it most desperately, SIGH.

There is... sort of

File Open <the current name> : DISCARD (the existing mess )

Now you see why I do frequent saves (after many replace all's have been verified).

[Tex2002ans]

A good idea for Sigil to have, might be to introduce a "Rolling Quick Save" or "Quick Save Slot" (I don't know the official term for it). I see it quite often in games in which they give a a certain number of quick save slots (perhaps have it as a user settable number, default to something reasonable like 6).

Every time you press Ctrl+S (or whatever Quicksave would be set to), it would save to the next slot, and then roll around back to saving in Slot 1 after the quick save limit (6 by default) was reached.

I am constantly pressing Ctrl+S after every few typo fixes. Having 6 quick save slots would mean if anything goes seriously wrong, I have the potential to roll back to 6 revisions ago.

This would also save from the dreadful "oh crap I messed up that Regex and replaced all, now would be the perfect time for my brain to hit Ctrl+S like my brain is trained to do after doing large fixes.......... uh oh, now I can't reload the last save because all of my footnotes are ruined."

This just happened to me on an EPUB that I was working on yesterday, luckily there were only maybe 20 that were broken, so I was able to manually type those back.

Perhaps these quick save slots might also be a perfect time to also introduce the "Save every X minutes" that multiple people have mentioned on these boards.

Bug #1: As a side note, there is a little bug that bothers me about the Mass Rename functionality. I believe this attached image should explain the bug perfectly.

Bug #2: I believe it started in Sigil 0.7.0. If I remember correctly, in the previous Sigil version, whenever you loaded/ran a "Saved Search", Sigil would auto-default to "Regular Expression" mode. Now, it stays on what was the last used setting ("Case Sensitive" or "Normal"). When I run a Replace All on a few of the cleaning groups I created, the Regexes find nothing, since it is stuck on "Case Sensitive".

PS: The Sigil spellcheck implementation is incredible (just as I first brainstormed on these forums). It helped me catch hundreds of typos in this EPUB, and it is the BEST way to catch wrongly hyphenated words from OCR or bad conversions.

[mrmikel]

The auto save issue has been brought up before.

There are pros and cons to it. If you have a problem, do you know how long you had it and how many levels to go back?

I think the feeling is that Sigil is aimed at pros and dedicated amateurs. If that is the case then you will be saving anyway, right? And you get to pick the time you are not saving junk, especially malformed junk because it is right in the middle of a correction.

That said, I have times when everything is going so well that I correct one chapter after another, and then go, OH%^^%&*&! because I haven't saved. Then I remember again for a while.