pretextbook / pretext-projects Goto Github PK

If only for Hitchman's "Story of 8".

@davidfarmer If you sent me a proper graphics file for Sage (off-list?), I could do the rest to add this in generally, and add to a few choice projects. Not sure why I did not think of this sooner...

Some authors want to specify more than one level, so keep remaining as a primary level, and use @secondary-level for a space-separated list.

See lebl-DIFFYQS and vdG-myers-parikh-LAFF-On-PfHP.

The sites element can have @landing, @html, @source, and @ancillary1. All good.

Then it also has @print and @pdf. I think this is missing something. There are:

1. PDFs intended to be read on a screen.
2. PDFs intended to be printed, with color.
3. PDFs intended to be printed in black and white.

Often, 3 is not just a matter of grayscaling 2. Careful work is done to choose a black/gray version of each color so that contrast is more certain to be good, and so that the real purpose of the distinct colors is still served.

All three things are PDF. So I propose having

1. @pdf-screen
2. @pdf-print-color
3. @pdf-print-bw

And maybe also allowing plain old @pdf, but only if you do not use any of the above.

What is the convention for when there are two (or more) authors on a project, collaborating form different institutions, and they insist that no one is the "primary" author? Like beezerfarmer-PTXDOC? Concatenate names in alphabetical order?

This is a real situation for a project I was about to add to the catalog.

See #50. Various comments in the source files provided (scrub once considered), and some comments on the PR, too.

Let authors flag a book as "highly accessible" - in other words, additional work beyond default PreTeXt that comes for free. Such as,

• Good "alt text" via the description element of an image.
• Careful use of color (as in diagrams).
• No interactives that trap focus, etc.
• More?

license has @code, @variant, and @version. All good.

license also has @pub-year, @price. Aren't these logically separated from license?

Also, I think it is allowable to openly license a book under the conditions of several licenses. Your book is your book, and you tell the world:

You are welcome to use this book under the terms of CC BY-SA. But if you prefer, you are also welcome to use this book under the terms of GFDL. Choose one. You can't mix some clauses from this one with other clauses from that one."

My point is, is there a provision for a project having more than one license element?

https://ringswithinquiry.org/ - but I think @mkjanssen should probably do it rather than me since I'll probably mess something subtle up.

Not all books are "real books".

Not to express the content of the project entry, but rather the language of the project. So maybe not @xml:lang but just @language?

We can announce the Projects repository as soon as we tweak the
format of the data file and update the instructions.

The instructions should say to use
src/beezer-FCLA.xml
as a model.

Can we get this ready for Monday's April newsletter?

#35 adds some new binary features, and the MIT license. Review, add to model entry, and ncorporate these into a Version 3 format with a changelog.

Some authors have videos (or screencasts, or whatever) that go along with their books - sometimes quite detailed. I think the "feature" category should have this, although I'm not sure whether it should also include hosting service e.g. youtube, vimeo ...

accessible., self-study., instructor-solutions.* need to be set properly. Badges are broken.

Do we need new files, or is XSL supplying the wrong file names?

Some PreTeXt books which may not have been submitted yet.

http://mhcc.edu/Faculty/ActivePreCalc/output/html/precalc1-MHCC.html

http://www.jiblm.org/mahavier/discrete/html/
(Ted may also have two other PreTeXt books.)

@kcrisman suggests (in PreTeXt drop-in development) that we could automate remixing PreTeXt books. (Cognizant of broken xref, mis-matched LaTeX macros, etc.)

So we know a book here in the project. And we could have @xml:id for various components. But we seem to want to have the connection between book and "master" PreTeXt/XML file. So a new entry in this catalog should provide this connection.

Instead of just showing CC in a circle, the specific license for that book should be shown.

I'd like to have "badges" information for each project.

Possible badges might include:
WeBWorK
AIM-approved
Won an award
Has instructor guide
Has solution manual
Has reading questions (is that badge-worthy, or is it just something I always push?)

Add a place to suggest a book is detailed, and self-contained, enough for self-study.

As I entered by book info, I thought of a few pieces of information I wanted to share that were not given room.

1. Latest release info (such as the current edition number and year, maybe ISBN, page-count)
2. Previous release info (an optional list to give the same info as that in latest release, but for other versions still available)?
3. Under features: ibl (or some designation to indicate the book would be useful for an ibl course),
4. Contributors (folks who work on the project but are not authors).

Also, I found myself unsure about whether to put yes or no for solutions/answers given that I would describe the status of answers in the book as "partial"

There are solutions intended for students, and solutions intended for instructors.
Same for answers.

The attribute in the source should reflect this distinction, as should the badge
and the alt text.

ORCCA has a significant fork at Lane Community College. Its content is different enough that I think a prospective user should be alerted to its existence.

Also, the PCC ORCCA will evolve into edition 2, but we plan to leave edition 1 available. For other edition evolutions, this would be unnecessary, but in this case the evolution includes significant changes to reflect the local curriculum redesign. And edition 1 is probably still a better option for some prospective adopters.

Both the new fork and a previous edition should ideally be included in pretext-projects, but should not necessarily inherit all of the primary project's attributes.

So what to do about these things? Here is an idea:

1. We already have <project xml:id="pcc-ORCAA">
2. We could have <project xml:id="lane-ORCAA" fork="pcc-ORCAA">
3. We could let item 1 become <project xml:id="pcc-ORCAA" edition="2.0">
4. We could have <project xml:id="pcc-ORCAA" edition="1.0">

In the output HTML, there could just be one entry, with the greatest numerical @edition's information. But there would be an indicator that "this project has forks and/or alternate/previous editions" and clicking something reveals the information about those alternatives.

That's an idea for discussion. But the purpose of this post is to bring attention to doing something for forks and editions.

Should a project have a place where copyright holder can be named? This is not always the author. And depending on the license, maybe someone will want to contact the copyright holder.

...from site and add to repository.