Victor Sack wrote:
> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>
>> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the
>> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some
>> sort of word processing format - whatever?)
>
> Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there
> has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which
> form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus of
> the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically
> the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see
> no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the
> arguments brought forth at the time.
>
> A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules,"
> particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should
> not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of
> people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get
> one for free in the future.
>
> However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I
> personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned
> but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that
> the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of
> being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say.
>
> As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as
> most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times.
>
> Victor

Given the role that you played in the original cookbook, I put
heavy weight on your words and feelings about this.

--
Jean B.