Jonathon Blake wrote:

> Barry wrote:
>
> > to value access to the info differently then OUP, and hence pay PTD
> better.
>
> OUP and ORA have different focus points:
> * OUP:: Intellectually challenging back list material;
> * ORA: Bleeding edge/cutting edge computer technology

Yeah, that is probably a mostly fair summary for the printed
materials...but read on....

>
> > Which is why I suggested it would be a revision or a revisiting of
> the same topic.
>
> "How to write Hittite, Cuneiform, Rongo-Rongo, Coptic, and Naxi using
> Word"?

No, a reading of the ORA web site explains their mission and the ways
the are seeking to expand it into other channels, including web sites,
online books, e-books, corporate editions, conferences, and I suspect,
unannounced partnerships with major sw producers for access to inside
help and info.

My entire premise is based on the fact that it is not just books, and so
would not be a simple replacement.

Beyond the fact that I didn't suggest, even given that, that ORA alone
would be the way to go, but rather in conjunction with someone like
Adobe, my thoughts were that readership who could make use of the
material, presented in a different fashion for a different audience,
could be reached, and financially it would benefit everyone involved. I
already gave a rough outline of how that might work.

Hey I don't even know if PTD has or could acquire the right to all the
material anyway. Maybe each of his authors in WWS has rights to his/her
own sections. Who knows?

These problems are all surmountable. If PTD was interested (which he
said he is not, which is fine - I was just brainstorming aloud) then I
would work with him off list anyway to drill down deeper. I am confident
an arrangement could be made that would benefit everybody. In fact, I am
starting to get intrigued by the concept myself - it is a natural
extension to something I have had in mind but which didn't seem quite
complete. Now what I had in mind makes more sense to even me...

>
> > > That puts it near the tail end of the "good for backlist" category.
>
> > O'Reilly serves the function of driving the acceptance of certain
> technologies, and doing it with a recognized panache.
>
> Don't confuse backlist with midlist or front list titles. ORA keeps
> front list and midlist titles. A back that covers grammatology is
> doomed either to oblivion, or the backlist.

Which again is precisely why I never suggested simply re-publishing the
material. It would need to be modified in format and content. Don't
confuse what I said for what you think I said :) because if I said what
you think I said, I would agree with you - it is a non-starter. But my
work involves looking for opportunities like this between the cracks
that are not necessarily obvious to everyone...

Best,

Barry