The point being, be careful with conjectures, and remain sanguine that - if it is ever possible to check - over 95% of your conjectures will be wrong.
-----
As far as I understand, TeX4ht won't support fontspec or XeLaTeX
technologies of using system fonts that do not have *.tfm's. In effect, by
adopting TeX4ht, one is likely to loose the features brought in by XeTeX.
However, here is another approach.
1. We translate all the Unicode character representations in the
document to Unicode code points in 7bit ascii which is very much palatable
to TeX4ht. A simple perl script, utf2ent.pl in the attached archive does
the job.
2. We run TeX4ht on the output of step 1.
3. Open the *html in a browser, I believe, we get what you wanted. See
the attached screen shot as it appeared in Firefox in my Linux box.
Here is what I did with your specimen document.
1. commented out lines that related to fontspec package from your
sources named as alex.tex.
2. added four lines of macro code to digest the converted TeX sources
3. ran the command: perl utf2ent.pl alex.tex > alex-ent.tex
4. ran the command: htlatex alex-ent "xhtml,charset=utf-8,fn-in" -utf8
(fn-in option is to keep the footnotes in the same document). I have used a
local bib file, mn.bib as I didn't have your bib database. biber was also
run in the meantime to process the bibliography database.
5. open the output, alex-ent.html in a browser. I got it as you see in
the attached alex.png.
Radhakrishnan's PERL script utf2ent.pl is#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
for my $file ( @ARGV ){
open my $fh, '<:utf8 br="" cannot="" die="" file:="" file="" open="" or=""> while( <$fh> ){
s/([\x7f-\x{ffffff}])/'\\entity{'.ord($1).'}'/ge;
print;
}
}
More distinctions (e.g., Gratis OA (free of price) and Libre OA (free of price and rights restrictions)) and discussion in Wikipedia (consulted 13 Feb 2012). The Sherpa/Romeo website helps with some of this.
I'm putting some indicators in parentheses after the journal title, for those cases where I can find out the information without correspondence.
It is often hard to find out these facts from the journals' websites. This suggests to me that for some of the editors, the various business models of OA publishing are not always well understood.
[2022-11: I keep the above list up to date as I hear of new journals. But some of the work of this blog post has now been superseded by FOASAS.]
---
*APF = Article Processing Fee, a fee that the publisher charges the author or the author's institution for publication in the Open Access journal. See discussion in Wikipedia (consulted 12 Feb 2012).
Foreword by Ian Hargreaves 01
Executive Summary 03
Chapter 1 Intellectual Property and Growth 10
Chapter 2 The Evidence Base 16
Chapter 3 The International Context 21
Chapter 4 Copyright Licensing: a Moment of Opportunity 26
Chapter 5 Copyright: Exceptions for the Digital Age 41
Chapter 6 Patents 53
Chapter 7 Designs 64
Chapter 8 Enforcement and Disputes 67
Chapter 9 SMEs and the IP Framework 86
Chapter 10 An Adaptive IP Framework 91
Chapter 11 Impact 97
Annex A Terms of Reference 101
Annex B Stakeholders Met during Review of IP and Growth 102
Annex C Call for Evidence Submissions 105
Annex D List of Supporting Documents
Conclusions
There are two unequivocal accounts of inoculation in the middle of the 16th century, one Chinese and one Indian, and each gives a specific place and name to the initial inoculators. Whether it was in use before about 1550 is entirely speculative.
The
account of Coult isn't "unequivocal" I'm afraid. Coult says that he
has been told that inoculation has been known in Bengal for 150 years,
"as near as I can learn." This is vague.
Then he says that Brahmana records give
the first Indian inoculator as "Dununtary."
This is a version of the Sanskrit name that is scientifically
transliterated as "Dhanvantari" or in Devanagari as "धन्वन्तरि". This
is the name of a mythological progenitor of the science of medicine.
This assertion is equivalent to claiming, say, that Aesclepius did
inoculation. It cannot be taken at face value as historical evidence, and should be treated as
an appeal to a mythological past age by someone who assumed that the ancient sages knew all of medical science.
Coult, writing in Calcutta, placed Dununtary in Champanagar: "a
physician of Champanager, a small town by the side of the Ganges about
half way to Cossimbazar." This can't be a place in Bihar. It has to be
somewhere north of Calcutta. Cossimbazar is in the northern outskirts of modern Berhampur. So
we're looking for a place that used to be called Champanagar, and is
somewhere round about Ranaghat, Santipur, Nabadwip or Plassey (as in,
"battle of"). Wherever this Champanagar is, if it's between Calcutta and Cossimbazar, it's in Bengal.
The trouble is, Campanagar (Campā, Campānagara, Campāpura, etc) is
normally a reference to the well-known place in Bihar, as Boylston
assumes. I think it's most likely that Coult is wrong about something.
Either he's wrong about the name "Champanagar" or he's wrong in
locating it between Calcutta and Cossimbazar. But the whole thing's
moot, really, since Dhanvantari is a mythical character.
With Robert Coult, in 1731, we apparently have a real witness, and a fairly
early one. But before relying on Coult's report, which we get through
Dharampal, I would feel more comfortable having eyes-on confirmation of
the Coult document. Years ago, I tried to follow Dharampal's references to
the Coult document,
bottom of page one. |