[bksvol-discuss] Re: Fw: Em-dashes
- From: "Evan Reese" <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:26:45 -0700
No criticism intended, but I couldn't help wondering if the effort expended
consulting him about this issue might have been better employed asking him to
weigh in on the order in which books are approved. I believe there's some
meeting this week in which this will be brought up, if I'm not mistaken, so
perhaps this issue will be rectified very soon. But I would imagine that a
sentence from On High would make any other discussions unnecessary.
And there is no controversy about this one. I haven't heard anyone come out in
favor of the current situation in which the most recent books are approved
first while books validated months ago languish in the queue.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jana Jackson
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 9:32 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Fw: Em-dashes
Hi, Everyone! Here is a response from Jim Fruchterman regarding the question
of em-dashes. Sorry, I just realized that I forgot to send it over last night.
<Smile>
Jana
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fruchterman
To: Jana Jackson ; Gustavo Galindo
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: RE: Em-dashes
Thanks, Jana. I took a look at the digest from Saturday, and I assume the
answer is that we don't want to move away from the way the book was printed: we
have made a commitment to publishers and authors to work to bring the scanned
texts closer to the original. If we have a preference from Braille readers to
change our Duxbury output, I'd rather keep the focus on that.
Jim Fruchterman
jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
