Re. the maps in the volume, I assume they're all historical maps and
thus of interest to the text itself. We probably want to keep them. But,
they are good candidates for SVG. The trick would be removing the yellow
stains before tracing to SVG... that might be tricky but probably not
impossible. Maybe David Grigg can help you with that, he converted a lot
of really good maps in Ulysses' S Grant's memoirs.
On 5/2/20 8:55 PM, Vince Rice wrote:
> I think the word you’re looking for is “dumber.” :)
> Excellent, that’s good to know. And it goes in order of appearance, so
> if I have note 1, 15, and 4, then the renumber makes it 1 (former 1), 2
> (former 15), 3 (former 4), correct? (I ask because sometimes a “subnote”
> is numbered by just appending numbers, e.g. note 61, note 611, note 62.)
> And the numbers start over in every chapter, so I’ll have to do what you
> did, prefix the note# with the chapter number.
> And you remind me that they have to be in the same order in both the
> body and endnotes.xhtml (duh!), so that probably answers #2 as well; I
> think footnotes that have footnotes are going to have to be merged into
> a single note, with some kind of notation approved by Alex to indicate
> the footnote (superscripted letters? numbers? asterisks? …), otherwise
> renumber notes is going to get confused. The notation inside the note
> can be display-only, since we won’t be tapping/clicking on it.
> Here’s a picture of what a note with notes might look like (this is a
> real example from chapter 1); I used letters for this example, but they
> could be anything. They would only be styled with <sup>a</sup>, since
> they’re only for display. (These superscripts show smaller than a
> regular <sup></sup> would.)
>> You're a braver man than I am, Vince!
>> I can answer (4): Yes, renumber-endnotes will renumber endnotes in a
>> simple sequence. All that's required on the first pass is that notes
>> have UNIQUE noterefs in both the body and in endnotes.xhtml. It can be
>> any kind of code. For example in Pilgrim's Progress there were
>> initially two sets of notes, one for each Part, and so I just made the
>> noterefs "1-34", "2-15" etc. Then the renumber function goes through
>> and matches them up and rebuilds endnotes.xhtml.
>> On 3 May 2020, 8:12 AM +1000, Vince <al...@letterboxes.org
>>> A few more questions, and updates on a couple of the previous ones.
>>> 8. Almost all of the editions I’ve looked at, in one way or another,
>>> show the year A.D. as it changes throughout the book. Some of them do
>>> it inline, almost all do it in the ToC. For example, see here
>>> ToC has very detailed entries for each chapter, and shows the year as
>>> it changes.
>>> We’re obviously not going to have that detail in the ToC (it’s not
>>> represented in the text itself), but I really hate to lose the year
>>> information. It’s pretty valuable as you go through the history to
>>> know where you are. Could I, at the very least, perhaps add the year
>>> range for a chapter to the chapter's epigraph (every chapter has
>>> one)? E.g., after the existing epigraph text in chapter 7 in the
>>> above link, add something like “(A.D. 235–248)”. There wouldn’t be
>>> one for chapters that didn’t have any years. (E.g., chapter 9 in the
>>> link, “The State of Germany…”, has no years in the ToC, and so
>>> wouldn’t have any in the epigraph.)
>>> 9. Some of the footnotes have Greek text (i.e. quoting a Greek
>>> source) in them. As far as I can tell, PG didn’t include the Greek
>>> text in the transcription; the rest of the note is there, just not
>>> the Greek portion. I hate to be 99% of the way there; is there any
>>> objection to me putting the Greek text back in the notes? (I haven’t
>>> yet seen an instance of him using it in the book text itself,
>>> although he certainly could have.)
>>> 10. There are also Latin quotes in a number of the footnotes, but the
>>> Latin is almost never italicized. (This is across all editions I’ve
>>> seen.) I assume we /do/ want to italicize it, per normal SE policies,
>>> 11. Do we semanticate books referenced in a footnote? I’ve never had
>>> that happen before, but almost every note here has a reference to one
>>> or more books. (Well, I assume they’re books.) For example, here are
>>> portions of a couple of notes from the first chapter…
>>> Dion Cassius, (l. liv. p. 736,) with the annotations of Reimar…
>>> Strabo, (l. xvi. p. 780,) Pliny the elder, (Hist. Natur. l. vi.
>>> c. 32, 35, [28, 29,]) and Dion Cassius, (l. liii. p. 723, and l. liv.
>>> p. 734,) have left us…
>>> “Dion Cassius” appears to be referring to Lucius Cassius Dio (don’t
>>> where the ’n’ came from); he wrote an 80(!)-volume history of Rome.
>>> So he’s using “Dion Cassius” as a shorthand for the book, but he
>>> gives the actual reference in the history (l. liv. p. 736,).
>>> Same for “Strabo”; although he also wrote a history, almost nothing
>>> survives of it, so I’m assuming the note is referring to his
>>> /Geographica./ (The note here is the first mention of Strabo in D&F,
>>> so there’s not a more detailed earlier citation showing the book
>>> name; Gibbons just assumes everyone knows what he’s talking about,
>>> and probably everybody reading this back then did.)
>>> In Pliny’s case it refers to the actual book name (Hist. Natur., an
>>> abbreviation for his /Naturalis Historia/).
>>> Do any/all of those need to be wrapped in a <span
>>> epub:type="epub:type="se:name.publication.book”>? (Or, actually, an
>>> <i epub:type…?) If so, that might tip me over the edge :); I don’t
>>> see any way to do that with a regex. In this case, I assume at least
>>> Dion Cassius and Strabo would /not/ be, since they’re not the actual
>>> book names. But they have detailed references attached to them. So
>>> there’s no way I can see to tell the difference between them and the
>>> Pliny reference, regex-wise.
>>> As more information on #2 (the notes on notes), it appears that PG
>>> did in the transcription what I suggested, in several but not all
>>> places—they merged a note on a footnote into the footnote itself, and
>>> just asterisked the reference and note.
>>> <p class=“foot”>This is a footnote with an extra* note on it. *This
>>> is the extra note.</p>
>>> As more information for #5 (scans), the above link in question 8 is
>>> from a complete five-volume edition I found that matches the PG
>>> scans, even though the PG transcription was done from a six-volume
>>> edition. The five-volume is one with just Milman’s notes, it’s
>>> post-1845 so it has the adjustments that Milman in that edition, and
>>> everything I’ve checked so far, where I’ve found differences in other
>>> editions, matches the transcription.
>>>> On May 2, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Vince <al...@letterboxes.org
>>>> While I’m continuing to proof /L’Mort de Arthur/…
>>>> I think I may regret this later (maybe even sooner), but I’ve always
>>>> wanted to read Gibbons’ /History of the Decline and Fall of the
>>>> Roman Empire/, so I thought I’d take a look at what it would take to
>>>> produce it. I’ve already run into a problem with the PG
>>>> transcription, which they fixed, but they broke something else in
>>>> the process, and it’s going to be “many days” before they get it
>>>> resolved. But that’s for them; for us, I have some questions.
>>>> 1. Although it’s always printed in multiple volumes, it doesn’t
>>>> appear to be /structured/ in volumes (and the number of volumes is
>>>> all over the map—four, six, eight, and I’ve seen as many as twelve).
>>>> The chapters are numbered sequentially from 1 to 71. I think,
>>>> therefore, that it should just have a single level, i.e. chapter.
>>>> Does that sound OK?
>>>> 2. Gibbons included a boatload (technical term) of footnotes. Many
>>>> of the now PD editions, including the one PG used for transcription,
>>>> also include notes by others. For example, in the PG edition, there
>>>> are notes by three people: Gibbons, Milman, and Guizot. This in and
>>>> of itself is NBD.
>>>> However, in some cases, the new notes are notes about Gibbon’s
>>>> notes. In other words, an endnote has an endnote reference in it.
>>>> For example, see here
>>>> but I’ve since discovered that there aren’t any Smith notes in PG.
>>>> The HTML file says it’s an 1845 edition, but I haven’t found it yet.
>>>> I do have a complete set of the edition from the earlier link I can
>>>> use for now. (I’ve also asked PG what scans they used.)
>>>> 6. The citations in the endnotes are going to be a problem for the
>>>> SE tools, because they use abbreviations that look like roman
>>>> numbers that aren’t. For example, notes 1-3 from the link in #2
>>>> above has this information…
>>>> 1 Dion Cassius (l. liv. p. 736,)…
>>>> 2 Strabo (l. xvi. p. 780,)…
>>>> 3 …and Vellius Paterculus, l. ii. c. 117…
>>>> In each case, the l. isn't 50, and the c. isn't 100. (I’m not sure
>>>> what they /do/ mean; I haven’t been able to find anything in a
>>>> search yet.)
>>>> This is exacerbated by a few instances where what follows the L.
>>>> really is 50, e.g. “…especially L. l. c. ix.” In that case, the
>>>> capital L (I don’t know why it was capitalized there) is the
>>>> whatever the other l.’s are (voLume?), while the lowercase l is fifty.
>>>> So, a couple of questions.
>>>> First, how do we deal with the periods on roman numerals in these
>>>> citations? Are they still extraneous and we should remove them, or
>>>> do we leave them to be consistent? IOW, should it be
>>>> Vellius Paterculus l. ii. c. 117
>>>> Vellius Paterculus l. ii c. 117
>>>> …especially L. l. c. ix.
>>>> …especially L. l c. ix. (the one after ix is a
>>>> sentence-terminating period)
>>>> Second, any ideas on preventing typogrify from wrapping all of those
>>>> l’s and c's so I don’t have to go hand-fix them all? My first
>>>> thought is to do a search and replace them with something weird that
>>>> doesn’t occur elsewhere. The problem is that I’d either have to
>>>> leave them like that for the entire production until the very end
>>>> (to allow multiple typogrify’s), or I’d have to do that (and
>>>> /remember/ to do that) every time I typogrify. Either way, that
>>>> would be a problem on review, because the reviewer couldn’t run
>>>> typogrify to see if anything changed, because there would be too
>>>> much noise to see anything else.
>>>> 7. There are multiple prefaces (you can see them beginning here
>>>> There’s a preface by Milman the editor (Preface by Dean Milman), a
>>>> preface by Gibbons (Preface of the Author), a preface to the 4th
>>>> volume of the quarto (“Preface to the Fourth Volume of the Original
>>>> Quarto Edition). From what I’ve seen, all of those are include in
>>>> all the various editions. How would we name those various files;
>>>> they can’t all be preface.xhtml. Would we do the usual and make them
>>>> the same as the title, e.g. preface-by-dean-milman,
>>>> preface-of-the-author, and
>>>> That should do it for now. :)
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>> send an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Standard Ebooks" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to standardebook...@googlegroups.com
> To view this discussion on the web visit