Hi Anne,
Thank you for the confirmation.
I've got a question both for you and for the wikisourcerers, do we want and
should we keep using WSexport or should we try to integrate WSexport
functionalities into more general tool? (for the second option, we need to
exchange about our specific needs and desires).
My point of view is that we are quite happy with WSexport right now so we
could say « if it ain't broken don't fix it » but on the other hand the
maintain a specific tool tailored for our specifities but it could be
useful for others and there is always the risk that nobody maintain it
anymore (a more general tool generally - but not always - having more
chances of being maintain).
I'd like to hear you point of view and the point of view of people
maintaining WSexport (mainly our beloved wikisourcerer supreme Tpt ;) )
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Anne Gomez, 11/10/2017 02:12:
> In case you're interested, the Foundation will be working to replace OCG
> over the coming months. I wanted to make sure you're aware in case you
> rely on any of this infrastructure and/or have plans for further
> development dependent on it.
>
> What this means in the short term is that PDF book rendering (through
> Book Creator) will be shut off for a few months at least while a
> suitable replacement is researched, tested, and built.
>
> Here's the full write up:
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/PDF_Functionality
>
> Let me know if you have any questions or if this has major impact to
> your work.
It does, of course. Wikisource and Wikibooks users sorely need to print
books for offline reading, it's something we keep hearing from anybody
in "real life".
Removing basic functionality and downgrading existing features for no
gain is an excellent long-run method to kill projects like Wikibooks,
Wikisource and Wikiversity whose potential users (such as teachers and
other OER folks) may prefer alternative platforms which show more care.
Nemo
Jon Katz, 22/11/2017 03:29:
> The issue you raise, is a known issue being tracked and worked on here
The issue I raise is that you should not make a change that makes life
worse for all users. The feature is currently useless in 100 % of cases,
so you should have rolled back immediately to the previous system as
long as it works even in 0,1 % of the cases.
For now, I'm telling people to use the PediaPress book builder and
ignore the PDFs produced by Wikimedia Foundation. This is not sustainable.
Federico
As published in 1914 it is PD in US.
Its copyright status in Gernany (published in Dresden) is probably unclear, so it should not be uploaded to Commons.
It can be uploaded locally to oldwikisource and, likely, to some other wikis that recognize US copyright status only.
Ankry
W dniu 2017-12-03 21:40:20 użytkownik mathieu stumpf guntz <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> napisał:
No. I don't have a book I would like to try it in mind, and I guess it would be pointless to import an random book on which I don't plane to work, wouldn't it?
Right I would have been interested to find works of Charlotte Pulvers, especially Elzasaj Legendoj, but actually I'm not even completely sure the book is in public domain as I didn't found her vital records.
Cheers
Le 03/12/2017 à 01:47, Sam Wilson a écrit :
I agree there might be some work to do at some future point when we're trying to import mixed-media works into Wikisource, but I'm afraid for now the sole purpose of ia-upload is to convert IA scans of books into DjVus. MP3s or any other non-text work cannot be converted with this tool.
Have you tried using it? Did you notice any problems?
— Sam.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017, at 06:03 AM, mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:
Le 29/11/2017 à 08:47, Sam Wilson a écrit :
* Attempts to use the tool on items that don't have DjVu, PDF, or JP2 Zip files will now fail. I'm not sure what people who were attempting to make DjVus of MP3s were thinking, but they'll get a nicer error message now.
Apart from the file format, which was under some patent issues until last year and should be soon be available to Commons (if not yet), what would be the problem with uploading the file to Commons? All the more, some books might have sound component. My daughter have a whole library of that kind. She also have plenty of book with tactile data which often make me wonder how we would integrate such a book in Wikisource, as I'm not aware of any technology to render that kind of data linked to the material texture. Defining a file format to store that kind of data would be surely the easy part, all the more when "digital texture" is a topic already extensively covered in the literature for 3D rendering purpose.
Just sharing some thoughts…
I dare say I'm broken something along the way, so do keep an eye out for weirdnesses and let me know. Thanks, sam. _______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Hi all,
I've fixed a couple of issues with IA Upload:
* Some uploads, probably mostly from BUB, were running foul of the abuse
filter because they included a link to books.google.com. This link is
now being replaced prior to upload by the {{Google Book Search link}}
template (which is an ID template, not so much a search template).
* The attempt to find a creator template on Commons now discards date
ranges.
* Attempts to use the tool on items that don't have DjVu, PDF, or JP2
Zip files will now fail. I'm not sure what people who were attempting to
make DjVus of MP3s were thinking, but they'll get a nicer error message
now.
I dare say I'm broken something along the way, so do keep an eye out for
weirdnesses and let me know.
Thanks,
sam.