Index talk:The History of Ink.djvu

Notes on Fonts
Do not attempt to replicate the multiple fonts used throughout the work. Use the standard font for the section headings (not blackletter) and for the body text. Also, do not italicise the entire work. The particular font chosen by the publisher is a sloping one, but that does not mean that italicised text was meant.

The last three plates should be done as text rather than images. However, they should be kept as simple as possible rather than the 8 or 9 Latin fonts and sizes that on those pages alongside the multiple non-Latin texts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am seeing evidence of the true equivalents to the usual uses for italics. See page 30. There are two instances here where the font is distinctly changed from the usual sloping one to a different font, actually looking like normal italics. See 'manuscripts' and "Bourgeois Gentilhomme" on that page. I've see the same font shuffle on other pages. I would suggest these are really italicized, and should be formatted that way. Comments? Shenme (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! I didn't see those on my first glance through. Yes, these should indeed be italicised. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Characters

 * straight quote marks and apostrophes (because this is a shared work, not an individual contribution)
 * dashes are em-dashes (—), not en-dashes (–)

Missing plate
Did this work have a "Pl.2"? I cannot locate another copy of this book, except on books.google, and those copies have limited access for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * https://archive.org/details/historyofinkincl00davirich -Einstein95 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Plate 1 has Fig-s 1 to4 , Plate 3 next in sequnce starts at Fig 9...  So yes there is a plate missing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The archive.org copy seems to have Plate 2 (Figs 5to8) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * An alternative scan can be found on Google Books (only just now made full view) -Einstein95 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Footnoting
Pages 31 and 32 I think share footnoting text. The three footnotes on page 31 never really seem to end, and the text at top of page 32 appears to be continuation of footnote 3.

Can someone more experienced with idiosyncratic footnoting styles check this out? I haven't yet seen any other footnoting in this work, so can't compare. Shenme (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

ShingaleseSinhalese [sic]

 * It seems that no one knows the language. Based on the script, it looks like “දලි,” although that isn’t correlative to the usual translation, “තීන්ත.” Could anyone help in this manner? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC).