From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Nov 23 18:39:19 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:39:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L4RM0-0000UI-P0 for llg-board@lojban.org; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:39:19 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20081124023906.HYQI19960.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:39:06 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id iqf41a00D22sj6m02qf4pG; Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:39:05 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=mKigYKNUwTsA:10 a=1jIWCYbW7n0A:10 a=LEZ4TtXldD5WSJb7ImQA:9 a=f84sJfbK-idAuxpxs0ZCNldMmWUA:4 a=pt045V2O6wwA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <492A1403.70403@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:40:03 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Accessibility... References: <426264.9988.qm@web53711.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20081122122211.GW9898@nvg.org> <49299D88.1050101@lojban.org> <20081123183531.GD9898@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: <20081123183531.GD9898@nvg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 457 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > Thank you, I was indeed unaware of their existence. > > It will probably be easier to work on the basis of the HTML versions > when the time comes to do the 2nd edition. We'll have to incorporate > the BPFK changes, hundreds of small errata[1], and if I'm not > mistaken, Matt has indicated willingness to redo the visual layout > completely. > > The thing we really need to keep in those masters, because it would > save us a lot of work, is Nora's excellent keyword index. I am not sure how recoverable it is, if the text is not maintained in Microsoft Word (which can produce html as well as word documents, but an index isn't worth much if you change the pagination) (I had to use a (paid) copy of acrobat to make the PDF, and it is an ancient version that may not work, but I am sure there are alternatives for that these days.) lojbab