|
I had a look at the Wikisource version and I see it shows that it is derived from a version at Gutenberg.
This could have accounted for how the Wikisource version has been split, though I see Wikisource has it split amongst 23 files whereas Gutenberg has managed it across 10 (but then the automated approach by Gutenberg does seem to split without reference to chapters etc and probably simply by size).
There is no reason to assume the Wikisource version is split according to original publication, however looking at some of the files they do seem to split logically (no obvious split in the middle of a conversation for instance) and would make a good guide to where to split.
As mentioned earlier in the thread the Adelaide version doesn't have the italics that can be found in the Wikisource (or Gutenberg) versions. You takes your choice as to which is the best to use as a basis, they all have pros and cons. Gutenberg would probably need all the files merging into one and then re-splitting but then you get the italics, Adelaide needs splitting but there are no italics and with Wikisource you need to download each section separately and then build them into a single EPUB. To what degree both Wikisource and Adelaide have been proofed and corrected against a paper copy isn't clear, so how far they diverge from the Gutenberg text is something that might be worth looking at before choosing.
BobC
|