[projectaon] Re: Comment Period for Lone Wolf 1-7
- From: Jonathan Blake <jonathan.blake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:25:31 -0700
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Ingo Kloecker
<projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 September 2011, Simon Osborne wrote:
>> On 21/09/2011 01:36, Jonathan Blake wrote:
>> > Let's get started with the comment period for Lone Wolf 1-7. It's a
>> > little odd starting it in the middle of the week, but I think we'll
>> > be OK. :)
>>
>> Just a thought: if we have existing archived copies of the xml that
>> relates to the published edition of a book, we could use that to
>> generate an old simple edition and diff against that.
>
> Since we are using Subversion, we could simply tag the published
> revisions. Then we'd always know which revision our published editions
> are based on.
I've been trying to do that although I haven't had to pull out a
published version yet so I don't know if I've implemented the tags
correctly, to be honest. Some books were last published prior to our
SVN repository, so the best we could do is the first copy in the
repository or somehow compare the published foll version to the
current full version.
>> I just compared the list of footnotes against each section in the
>> Mongoose Publishing edition...if we copied them, we could make errata
>> changes to the text and lose 21 (!!) of our footnotes for this book
>> alone. I haven't checked Books 3-7 yet. That said, I think Mongoose's
>> solutions are sometimes inelegant, so we shouldn't slavishly go along
>> with their text.
>>
>> I know we don't want to linger over this comment period. Should we
>> leave the footnotes as they are, or should I make a list of what the
>> Mongoose solutions to our footnotes were and implement them
>> selectively? Or (if possible) would someone else like to do this, if
>> they own copies of the Mongoose editions? ;-)
>
> I've been wondering lately whether we are actually allowed to take any
> changes from the Mongoose editions. We probably do not have the right to
> publish the Mongoose editions. I think it's okay to mention the Mongoose
> solutions in the footnotes (if we think they are worth mentioning). But
> I'm dubious about making our text identical to the one from the Mongoose
> editions.
I think you have a valid point. If we were to make them exactly the
same, then we might be in some sort of trouble (though I hope they
wouldn't call us out on it). However, I think we're only going to
implement some of their changes.
--
Jon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
