i18n@... wrote:
> 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?

You don't have to read farther than p. iv to know for your very own
self. It's a "work for hire."

> 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...

Are you suggesting you have some sort of connection with "ORA"?

> > > > 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...

What's your work?
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...