Re: feedback to umichigan on "books and culture", part 1
- From: Bowerbird@[redacted]
- Subject: Re: feedback to umichigan on "books and culture", part 1
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:48:48 EDT
> I intended it to mean the "bound-sequence",
> as you noted.
that's the way i originally interpreted it,
and yet you took issue with me. why?
> > if you've named your files correctly, their sequence is
> > determinable from the names; it really _is_ that simple.
> > Agreed, and the system I've come up with will do that.
the system you described in your post here, however,
had the sequence-number contained in the filename,
which is -- as i explained -- a bad practice to follow.
and if you agree that the sequence number should be able
to be determined from knowledge of the filenames alone,
then there's no reason to _include_ it in the filenames too.
there's no way you can "rescue" your position here, jon.
> And if there's a need to transform the filenames,
> a simple script will do that.
well, of _course_ it's always quite easy to rename files.
but that is _bad_practice_, because then you have files
which are running around with different sets of names,
which is a situation that imposes costs without benefits.
that's something that i already explained.
i'll repeat the rule, jon: to the greatest extent possible,
you don't want the same file going by different names,
nor do you want different files to have the same name.
it does your arguments no good for you to "reply" to me
when your replies have the same flaws in them that were
shown in your original posts. think things through please.
[Moderator: As the signal-to-noise ratio of this subthread
is showing signs of dropping, it may be worth stepping back a bit
and seeing what issues are in play here.
Past commenters have agreed that it is useful to keep track
of the page sequencing and the page numbering of a book (the
former being useful to page-turners and other book-processing
programs; the latter being useful to human readers, citation
systems, etc.) In most cases, sequencing can be determined
from numbering in a straightforward way, but there are various
exceptions (odd numbering schemes, unnumbered pages, restarting
sequences, numbering mistakes., etc.)
So, some relevant questions include:
-- Should both sequencing and numbering be explicitly noted
somewhere? (I haven't seen anyone say outright that explicit
sequencing *anywhere* is inherently a bad idea, but it has been argued
that it's relatively unimportant, and may confuse readers if they
have to deal with page *sequence* numbers instead of or alongside
"regular" page numbers)
-- Which of those two things, if any, should be noted in page filenames?
Possible answers include:
a) Numbering only (Bowerbird)
b) Sequencing only (akin to what happens by default in many PDFs)
c) Neither; they should just be in the metadata (UMich)
d) Both (Jon Noring)
e) It doesn't matter much as long as the files are well managed
The position you take will probably be more convincing to readers if you
can show a real-world example of where your recommended choice has helped
you or your users, or where a different choice has led to problems.
Thanks! - JMO]