I got an email from the publisher of my D Cookbook asking me to write another book on D. From their email:

"We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D programming."


I had to say no; I just don't have that kind of time right now. However, they asked me to ask here if anyone would be interested. If you are, email me and I'll get you more information and put you in contact with the Packt editors.

On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 16:25 +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> I got an email from the publisher of my D Cookbook asking me to write another book on D. From their email:
> 
> "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D programming."

Uurrr… I guess they have redefined the term "commissioned". I would have said "they have permission to commission/contract".

> I had to say no; I just don't have that kind of time right now. However, they asked me to ask here if anyone would be interested. If you are, email me and I'll get you more information and put you in contact with the Packt editors.

What is their workflow these days? When they asked me to do a Python book and later a Groovy/GPars one, they were tied to a Word-based workflow for authors.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:25:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> I got an email from the publisher of my D Cookbook asking me to write another book on D. From their email:
>
> "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D programming."
>
>
> I had to say no; I just don't have that kind of time right now. However, they asked me to ask here if anyone would be interested. If you are, email me and I'll get you more information and put you in contact with the Packt editors.

Thanks for the Info.
I might take the bait :)

On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:51:20 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> I would have said "they have permission to commission/contract".

yeah, me too, but I know what they meant.

> What is their workflow these days?

idk if it has changed in the last year, but mine was done on MS Word as well. They provide a template then you follow it and give them the .doc. The editors then give back the .doc with comments attached.

On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 16:54 +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> idk if it has changed in the last year, but mine was done on MS Word as well. They provide a template then you follow it and give them the .doc. The editors then give back the .doc with comments attached.

s/Word/LibreOffice/, I do not have Windows, let alone Word.

The core problem with the workflow, is that it assumes the author is only there to provide content and has no say in any other aspect of the book. As someone more used to providing press PDF this is irritating. However I could get over it, if the workflow involved a source I can put into version control. Obviously XeLaTeX is the correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best. Any suggestion of DocBook/XML as authored source is generally met with derision, especially given there is AsciiDoc.

I have to admit, doing a Go or D book, is kind of appealing. Technically I am supposed to be doing "Python for Rookies, 2e" but it isn't happening for reasons I would rather not let the NSA know about.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:25:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

> "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D programming."


That doesn't really sound like "Learning D". It sounds more like " Why D is superior"

On 2/14/15 9:13 AM, Israel wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 16:25:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>
>> "We have recently commissioned a book on D, titled ' Learning D '.
>> This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind
>> this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to D
>> programming."
>
>
> That doesn't really sound like "Learning D". It sounds more like " Why D
> is superior"

Huh? Doesn't seem at all to me.

"Learning furniture maintenance. This book will have approximately 400 pages and and the vision behind this book is to introduce practical concepts and tasks specific to furniture maintenance."

It's a very generic characterization, even a tad too generic. If I were an acquisition editor I'd go for more eloquent phrasing ("this book" is repeated etc).


Andrei

On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 17:04:24 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> Obviously XeLaTeX is the
> correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best.

During the editing of the Russian translation of TDPL, I've worked in MS Word as well. Probably its main advantage is its collaboration tools: you can see who added or deleted which parts, and toggle between visible edits and final text easily. You can also add comments to a text range; by passing the document along, this made possible even short conversations.

What would be the equivalent of such collaboration in a non-MS-Word-based workflow?

On 2/14/15 9:04 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 16:54 +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
>> idk if it has changed in the last year, but mine was done on MS Word
>> as well. They provide a template then you follow it and give them
>> the .doc. The editors then give back the .doc with comments attached.
>
> s/Word/LibreOffice/, I do not have Windows, let alone Word.
>
> The core problem with the workflow, is that it assumes the author is
> only there to provide content and has no say in any other aspect of
> the book. As someone more used to providing press PDF this is
> irritating. However I could get over it, if the workflow involved a
> source I can put into version control. Obviously XeLaTeX is the
> correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best.

Many publishers may allow you to provide camera-ready copies.

> Any
> suggestion of DocBook/XML as authored source is generally met with
> derision, especially given there is AsciiDoc.

You'd be surprised to hear the tooling at the Pragmatic Programmer is all XML based and quite inflexible. Our negotiations broke down over that, in spite of their really beefy financial offering.

> I have to admit, doing a Go or D book, is kind of appealing.
> Technically I am supposed to be doing "Python for Rookies, 2e" but it
> isn't happening for reasons I would rather not let the NSA know about.

Go? Urgh. As they say: Come for the concurrency, leave for everything else :o).


Andrei

On 2/14/15 10:15 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Saturday, 14 February 2015 at 17:04:24 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> Obviously XeLaTeX is the
>> correct medium, but AsciiDoc is acceptable as a second best.
>
> During the editing of the Russian translation of TDPL, I've worked in MS
> Word as well. Probably its main advantage is its collaboration tools:
> you can see who added or deleted which parts, and toggle between visible
> edits and final text easily. You can also add comments to a text range;
> by passing the document along, this made possible even short conversations.
>
> What would be the equivalent of such collaboration in a
> non-MS-Word-based workflow?

Adobe offers commentary tools for PDFs. -- Andrei