Thank you, Illiterati! No, it's not, is it? I'm sorry about that. Leon didn't specify and since taking over the reins I've been a bit shy about making an executive decision on what's not 'my' project. I think in a work like this it would be good not to let through major mistakes that alter the meaning of crucial points, and not to have any inadvertent omissions, so PLing against the text would be helpful* if PLers don't mind.Illiterati wrote:PLed 10 and found it an image of perfection. What level of PL do you require here, as it is not noted in the project description?
In the cases of the two misreadings that libraryanne has noted, I don't think they're major enough (and as 'word-perfect' was not specified to the readers before sign-up either) that I'd refuse to catalogue if they're not fixed: i.e., I am happy to leave them to the readers' discretion. We are certainly WAY above our supposed 90% accuracy commitment (though that is a lot of inaccuracy), and in fact above the accuracy of the text source - I know I'm having to correct some scannos/typos as I go.
I hope that seems reasonable and you don't feel it undermines your careful work proofing against the text if changes are not 'enforced'?
(By the way, I'm working on sec 11, but it's IMMENSE, and will be split into several parts.)
*The sections Andy Yu has kindly PLed may not have been, but I'm not going to worry about that.