@Billinghurst, I think Aubrey was referring mainly to pdf files, which sometimes have text and format but they are not that easy to represent in Wikisource. The main problem is that our current workflow always assume that we are going to proofread a text and have it stored as a web page.
@others: for me it doesn't matter much if the representation of the metadata is done by a template, an index page, or something different (maybe related to the new Extension:BookManager?) However I think that from the user point of view it is better to have a consistent system that can handle: 1) representation of book/source metadata 2) give access to export/visualization options I'm preparing a document with some ideas that we can discuss here. Micru On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:48 AM, billinghurst <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:16:54 +0530, "Aarti K. Dwivedi" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > A slighly off-topic question: Even if we modify the extension to > proofread > > books which do not have scans( I am assuming books that were born > digital > > ), against what > > will these books be proofread? > > > > I am not sure why we are looking to proofread a digital only file, unless > of course it never had a text layer and it had to be OCR'd. Proofreading > surely only relates to scanned images where there has been the need to > proofread. > > Regards, Billinghurst > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
