Talk:E-text

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

This seems to use the term "e-text" too broadly and too narrowly at the same time. It restricts the term to ASCII text files, though it is commonly used for books in other formats (especially open formats like HTML; "html etext" gets 10,400 Google hits), and it seems at one point to sloppily use the term "etext" to refer to any ASCII text file no matter its content. Can someone cite sources that use the term in this vast sense? --Jim Henry | Talk 00:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Concur, in particular the description of html and programs being etexts is just silly. They are text files.

Remake of the page[edit]

Currently the article talks both about the ETEXT format and "electronic text" as a concept. This makes the article confusing and, depending what you look for, inaccurate.

I'd split the article into two. One would be about the ETEXT format (used in old text newsletters and project Gutenberg) and the other would be for "Electronic Text" (or e-text), an article that I really don't believe is necessary but I can respect the need for in others. --eduo 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the above sentiments that this needs serious attention. I don't know how to tackle it myself so have flagged it for expert attention. Nurg 06:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Start of one expert's edit[edit]

I agree w/ the points made above; article needs much work, esp. because of confusing several senses of its subject. I've been working in this domain since 1977, so have taken a shot at the requested "expert" edit. Doesn't feel finished, but I think it's considerably better. Comments, fixes, etc. of course welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sderose (talkcontribs) 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)