|
kovidgoyal said:
> Sigh this is a discussion about the merits of light weight markup,
no, it was a discussion about how to make p.g. e-texts beautiful.
but it got re-routed into something else, so i went with the flow...
but a discussion of light-markup in general is too far off the mark.
i'll respond to your points, because you've been so very impatient,
and insistent, but it's time to draw some lines to bound the topic...
> It's about trying to figure out whether spending time and effort
> on creating apps that support light weight markup is worth it.
it is? that seems kind of silly to me. no, _very_ silly.
you think it's _not_ worth time, so you _won't_ do it.
and i think it _is_ worth time, so i _will_ do it. so there.
everyone's happy. end of discussion. everyone's happy.
and down the line, i'll have a library in light-markup format,
and the world-at-large will then decide if that is worthwhile.
i suggest that you prepare a heavy-markup library to
compete with mine, because i'd hate to win by default.
> 1) Features not supported by light weight markup
are you trying to tell me what my system can and cannot do?
because it always makes me laugh when someone does that.
> 2) I care because I am trying to drill into your thick head
> that light weight markup is not the best solution for ebooks.
and i'm trying to share with people that i've found that it _is_.
and that's all i want to do, to _tell_ them. to share information.
because i'm way past the "discussion" stage on this little topic.
if you wanted to take part in that, you should have been on the
project gutenberg listserves for the last 4 years. because _now_
i'm at the "proof is in the pudding, and here's my pudding" stage.
and i don't particularly care if the message penetrates through
"your thick head" or not. it won't be decided here... or by us...
it'll be decided by the real people who actually use my library and
either (1) like it and continue to use it, or (2) don't like it and stop.
so your general opinion on the value of light-markup means nothing.
as does mine. this issue will be decided by real users in the real world.
> 1) If your tools are not open source you're not giving them to people you're
> giving people the ability to use them. A subtle, but important distinction.
that's exactly right. i'm giving them the ability to use the compiled apps,
and i'm not giving them the source-code. and that's exactly what i intend.
if you want the source-code to programs that do what mine do, write it...
i won't give you fish. i will teach you how to fish. but i won't give you fish.
and i couldn't care less if that bothers you or not. might even hope it does.
> 2) Again the point of this discussion is
> to weigh the merits of light weight markup
> as a format for ebooks, not to decide
> whether you've spent your time wisely or not.
no, the thread was created to talk about the various ways that people
bring typographical beauty to the ugly e-texts from project gutenberg.
i shared a list that i had made, and invited other people to add to it...
if you want to start a discussion about the merits of light markup,
go and start _that_ thread. but, like i said, i'm past that talk stage...
i'm creating pudding, and giving people samples so they can taste it.
but, please, if you have any questions about what z.m.l. can handle
-- any structure that is typically found in books, even only rarely --
then do feel free to ask me about it, and i'll tell you how i'd work it...
a hypothetical discussion of the general merits, though? no thanks.
i'm sure you know -- as a coder -- that after chewing on something
well enough to explain it in the detail required by a compiler, there is
something terribly unsatisfying about vague and general handwaving.
if you want to show me books from the project gutenberg library
you think i can't digitize, fine, bring 'em on. (they exist. about 1%.
i'm leaving those to the heavy-markup crowd.) but if you want to
throw out a claim that there are _many_ that i can't do, who cares?
i'm gonna prove you wrong with the pudding of the 99.2% i can do.
> 3) My concern was writing converters to zml not from zml.
> If you want to push zml as an ebook format, considering that
> there are currently no ebooks in zml you'd better worry about
> writing converters to zml not from zml.
maybe you didn't hear me say i will convert the p.g. library myself.
there will be approximately 15,000 books in z.m.l. format soon...
i've also created post-o.c.r. clean-up programs geared toward z.m.l.,
which people can use to turn google's scan-sets into nice zml-books.
and once authors realize how easy it is to make a kick-ass e-book
with z.m.l., the number of _new_ books in the format will explode.
so, while i'm certainly touched by your "concern" about writing
converters to z.m.l., i'd suggest to you that it's misplaced, and
perhaps you could find a more appropriate cause to care about.
-bowerbird
|