[bksvol-discuss] Re: Submission formats are barriers to validation

  • From: "Tiffany H. Jessen" <tjessen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 10:39:56 -0400

Now that I know people prefer files in rtf, I will use that instead of kes.
I believe there are four or five books I've submitted almost a month ago in
kes.  They're already pretty well edited, but have not been validated yet.
As that I still have the original kes file, I don't mind saving and
resubmitting them in rtf so they can get through faster,  but I thought
having two copies on the validation page might create too much clutter.  I
am not a validater, so don't know how a lot of that background stuff works.
Should I bother? or not?
Sorry for so many dopy inquiries recently.
And thanks.
Tiff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E." <thoth93@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 10:12 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Submission formats are barriers to validation


> If you have the proper software to read Kes or Arc my understanding is
that
> you can improve the scan if folks keep their images.  In practice, this
> means a very Kes file to upload.
>
> Some folks upload a book in two formats, one Kes or Arc, and the second
> time in the .rtf form.  This does mean double submissions on the step 1
> page but also leads to greater flexibility in who can download the book.
>
> E.


Other related posts: