b-t-k / pierre-choderlos-de-laclos_dangerous-liaisons_thomas-moore Goto Github PK

View Code? Open in Web Editor NEW

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 MB

Standard ebooks edition of Dangerous Liaisons

License: Other

CSS 0.43% HTML 99.57%

pierre-choderlos-de-laclos_dangerous-liaisons_thomas-moore's People

Watchers

pierre-choderlos-de-laclos_dangerous-liaisons_thomas-moore's Issues

Review issues

Since the entire book is letters, we don't want the normal left/right indent on them. Just add CSS for [epub|type~="z3998:letter"] and set the left and right margin to 0.
I don't believe there's anything about the letter notes that would make them blockquotes, semantically. I see no reason those can't be just s. And with that change, the class isn't needed; the selector can just be hgroup ~ p, as those are (I believe) the only instances of a  being a direct sibling to the header.
The CSS properties in each selector should be in alpha order. (I know, but it's in the manual, 1.2.5.2.)
There is an unsemanticated  in letter 31. I would say it should be quoted, not italicized, as should the earlier "I love you" in the same letter that currently has  tags. In both cases the phrase is being quoted, not emphasized.
There are a number of other instances of this: the two "Papers …" in letter 64, the "Yes, Sir, I have wrote to her" in letter 25, the "An open account between…" in letter 169, the Socrates quote in letter 146, "She must give herself up" in letter 10, and so on. Not all italics in the source should stay italics; our style guide overrides them in certain cases, and in any case these aren't emphasis. I'm afraid all the 's should be reviewed. Sorry!
The "ton"s in letter 81 and 85 aren't emphasis, either, they're untranslated French (the "ton" appears in the French scans), so should have language tags, since the meaning isn't our English ton.
Couple of things on the letter 75 note. First, the brackets and colon. I know they're in the source scans, but they're regular parens in the French, and it ends with a normal period. Brackets usually indicate an editorial insert, and this isn't one, and I really don't understand the colon. IMO those are worth an editorial commit, but I'll leave it with you. Also, the mention of "end of the first volume" is unnecessary and probably confusing since our edition doesn't have volumes, so it should be removed. It can just be "… has seen in the 59th letter…"
I am not an editor and you live with one, but shouldn't "a interconnected" be "an interconnected" in the long description?
In the last paragraph of the long description "…the patronage Louis Philippe II…" should be "…the patronage of Louis…", I believe.
(Did I mention I'm not an editor?) As it sits, I think the commas are confusing in that patronage sentence. "…enjoyed the patronage of A, B, and other royalist and conservative figures…" sounds like a string of three patronages. But the last one is actually starting a new phrase ("…enjoyed the book"). Would "…enjoyed the patronage of A and B, and other royalist and conservative figures… enjoyed the book…" maybe help avoid the confusion? Or will I be the only one confused? (Entirely possible.)

Recommend Projects