[projectaon] Re: Footnotes Redux--Revenge of the Deathlord
- From: Thomas Wolmer <angantyr@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:21:23 +0100
2012/2/11 Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 10/02/2012 17:14, Jonathan Blake wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Simon Osborne<outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One thing I've noticed is how intrusive the ERRTAG comments are. I know
>>> that
>>> they were once very helpful in editing, but I think they have outlived
>>> their
>>> usefulness. I'd like, if it's acceptable to the other editors, to go
>>> ahead
>>> and remove them all from 17tdoi as an experiment. Does anyone have any
>>> thoughts on this?
>>
>>
>> I understand what you mean, but I admit that I have mixed feelings. I
>> had hoped that we could use them to eventually tie changes back to the
>> section and in some vaguely defined way that would allow us to
>> automatically recreate the original text. We would still have a lot of
>> work to do even if we keep the ERRTAG comments, but they might speed
>> up the work. In balance, if it's interfering with our current work,
>> it's hard to justify keeping them around for the sake of something we
>> might do sometime.
>
>
> I've experimented with doing this along with the (un-committed) changes for
> Book 17. Having all those redundant tags removed certainly made life easier
> for me, though I appreciate I'm not the only one to work on the xml. Their
> removal made searching for specific text easier, and also improved manually
> adding things to the Errata section--no more getting a mild headache trying
> to make sense of what is already there! >_< Only several searches were
> needed when using a rough regular expression such as:
>
> <!--ERRTAG-[A-Z]+-[0-9]+-->
> <!--/ERRTAG-[A-Z]+-[0-9]+-->
> <!--ERRTAG-[A-Z]+-[0-9]+-[A-Z]+-->
> <!--/ERRTAG-[A-Z]+-[0-9]+-[A-Z]+-->
>
> I'm sure that can be reduced down to just one expression, but I'm just
> dabbling to make life simpler for myself. ;-) The text editor I currently
> use purports to have a Find/Replace in Files feature, so I could
> theoretically do this all in one go, assuming we decide to do it.
>
> Honestly, I don't see any need to recreate the buggy, typo-ridden original
> text. On the other hand, it might be possible to script much of it simply
> from what is present in the Errata section even without the ERRTAGs--not
> that I would have the first clue on how to do it, of course.
As the inventor of the ERRTAGs long ago - no, you won't be able to
reverse all of the corrections, since there are (post-correction)
sections contain multiple instances of a "correct" phrase, but only
some of the phrases were originally "wrong". (I know, since I once
made a script that verifies that the errata entries are really
correct, i.e. that the do contain the corrected phrases but not the
original ones, and then I noticed it sometimes got more matches for
the corrected phases than I anticipated...)
--
Thomas
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
