Question about Don Rosa's family tree

[H.W.Fluks@telecom.tno.nl]

Daniël:

>>> Can you also add the missing issue codes to the COA interface?

>> I think there's no need to bother the COA user with 
>> codes like that.

> I *am* a COA user, and I *want* to be bothered with it.

I think that's because you are not only a COA user, but also an indexer. Or is there another reason that a COA user would want to know the internal codes that were meant for indexers only?

> Debates are not as important as their results.

But I already told you the result:
H> For practical reasons, we decided in Inducks to call the version 
H> with sidebar "original", and the other one "changed".

If you want to know the exact "practical reasons" and our discussions, I can dig out the archives for you.

>>> "takes" "mixes" "overdubs"
>> I don't know what these technical 
>> terms mean. But I also think I don't need to know.

> "I don't understand your hours of typing and thinking, 
> but what do I care?"

That's not what I intend to say.
You're using a metaphor to explain something. I don't understand the metaphor at all (and I'm not interested in the things described by that metaphor). Then there's no use in explaining the metaphor to me; better concentrate on the original subject.

> > Inducks has some minor flaws for people who want *very* exact 
> > information about Barks or Rosa creations.
> 
> I don't call them "minor flaws". I know quite a lot about Barks.

That's quite an understatement. 8-)

> But when looking at COA, I sometimes don't get a clue what exactly is
> meant. So, I'm curious if "Barks dummies" would know what's going on.

You're right.

> And since Rosa is making multiple versions of stories, these instances 
> are not just a few exceptions anymore.

Well actually, they still are. Rosa is making a dozen stories a year (if we're lucky). In the total producktion of several hundreds of stories per year, these Rosa stories are still exceptions.

> What art does an editor need [...]

Note that Inducks was not primarily meant for editors. The fact that they can use it is a very good thing, but editors should not *rely* on Inducks data, but always double-check.

> And what about the new art that Jippes and Rosa made for those two 
> stories? It's very nice that they've created that new work, but it 
> muddies the water even further. And COA doesn't provide any clue.

Yes, we should add more "clues" in Inducks in some specific cases.
(Like you and I have already been doing during our phone calls.)

--Harry.