Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a231a8eb3b93d685

Jump to content

Talk:E-text

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Sderose in topic Start of one expert's edit

Untitled

[edit]

This seems to use the term "e-text" too broadly and too narrowly at the same time. It restricts the term to ASCII text files, though it is commonly used for books in other formats (especially open formats like HTML; "html etext" gets 10,400 Google hits), and it seems at one point to sloppily use the term "etext" to refer to any ASCII text file no matter its content. Can someone cite sources that use the term in this vast sense? --Jim Henry | Talk 00:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Concur, in particular the description of html and programs being etexts is just silly. They are text files.

Remake of the page

[edit]

Currently the article talks both about the ETEXT format and "electronic text" as a concept. This makes the article confusing and, depending what you look for, inaccurate.

I'd split the article into two. One would be about the ETEXT format (used in old text newsletters and project Gutenberg) and the other would be for "Electronic Text" (or e-text), an article that I really don't believe is necessary but I can respect the need for in others. --eduo 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with all the above sentiments that this needs serious attention. I don't know how to tackle it myself so have flagged it for expert attention. Nurg 06:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Start of one expert's edit

[edit]

I agree w/ the points made above; article needs much work, esp. because of confusing several senses of its subject. I've been working in this domain since 1977, so have taken a shot at the requested "expert" edit. Doesn't feel finished, but I think it's considerably better. Comments, fixes, etc. of course welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sderose (talkcontribs) 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply