On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:46:22 +0200, Alex Brollo <[email protected]> wrote: > Into a recent talk at en.source Scriptorium, it has been told that nsPage > can be viewed merely as a proofreading tool, the ns0 transclusion/text > being the real core of source content. > > I have a different opinion, since I see nsPage code as the real core of > source content, ns0 being merely a derived content, that could be obtained > with complete automation with a set of data wrapped into a Lua/Scribunto > set of structural data (wrapping any needed data for header template and > for pages tag), so that any ns0 page/subpage could be obtained with a > template {{Derive|index base page name}}. > > Giving to nsPage such a core content role, it will be much simpler to wrap > into it TEI data, and any POV related to different styles of > chapter/sections structure/naming could be avoided; html rendering will be > unchanged, so saving IMHO conversion in ePub. > > What do you think about? > > Alex brollo
I am fairly certain that 95% of our transcribers would have little or no concept about which you are talking, and I am not certain that I do either. Once we get out of the scope of the obvious, further suggestions start to be difficult. The concept that we utilise at enWS is that * Page: ns is a working, non-presentation area. It is a means for formatting text for transclusion to the main ns (for straight transcription) and for translation (for WS sourced translations). * Main ns is the presentation layer of the work produced by the author. We are not into the slavish concept of "the page" as produced by the printer as its own entity beyond it being a carriage for the text. I would think that any further interpretation about structural data is getting too weighed down in other considerations, not the concept of the capturing of the words of an author. Regards, Billinghurst _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
