[projectaon] Re: More errata.
- From: Ingo Kloecker <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:02:36 +0200
On Friday 29 August 2008, Simon Osborne wrote:
> Jonathan Blake wrote:
> >>> 1) http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/04tcod/sect44.htm
> >
> > I had always assumed that they were gettable. I had a strange
> > tendency to collect as many items as possible. I was a collector in
> > other words. I intentionally killed these Redeemers just so I could
> > have one of their amulets. The item is never used in the books as
> > far as I can find so this change won't have any gameplay impact.
>
> Reordered the sentences as per my proposal. Fixed.
Please revert this change. There is nothing in the text (maybe except
for the lack of capitalization of the amulets ?) that warrants this
change. What harm does it do if the reader decides to pick up the
amulets? Answer: No harm at all.
I think we are slowly reaching a stage of analness that does Joe's text
more harm than good. Please let's leave at least some decisions to the
readers of the books. And, no, it's not necessary to footnote every
little ambiguity with our interpretations/suggestions. Joe's books are,
well, books. They are no boring algorithms without any room for
interpretation. If we remove any room for interpretation then the books
will lose a lot.
Let's stick to fixing orthographic and grammatical errors, and problems
with the game flow.
Of course, this is just my opinion. Feel free to ignore it.
> >>> 2) http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/04tcod/sect12.htm
> >>
> >> I have always taken this to mean: take all that you need. Should
> >> we footnote this for clarity?
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Footnote added. Fixed.
Same here. Is this footnote really necessary? IMO it is not needed. Let
the reader decide without forcing our decision on him.
> >>> 7) http://www.projectaon.org/en/xhtml/lw/05sots/sect58.htm
> >
> > If we had a reason, I don't remember it now, though the wording was
> > always awkward. Perhaps we removed them because they wouldn't make
> > sense in potential non-linked versions (e.g. plain text) or
> > versions that didn't have a numbered section page (e.g. PDF).
>
> Yes! That was it. I've added this to the Errata Page for Book 5 as a
> reminder of why we don't link to the Numbered Sections.
I think it's a wrong decision to cripple the HTML version just because
such a link does not make sense/is not necessary for versions in other
formats.
Regards,
Ingo
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at http://www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts: