>Not correct. First, there are different versions of accepted Koran text. Its size is not massive. Adil Awalli of Ready Set Go in London has a superior product for the Koran that makes InDesign look inferior.
>Similarly, the Bible is a fraction in size of the Talmud, even including Hebrew Tanach, which Adobe customers are doing.
>Therefore, only the Talmud is the choice subject for all different reasons.
Sorry, I fail to see the logic. You are saying because Ready Set Go typeset a Qoran, therefore Adobe should typeset a Talmud? I don't really understand why RSG typeset a Qoran, but perhaps this was to prove that RSG can do this. However, there is only one set text of the Talmud so if Adobe were to do this, then yes, it would be in direct competition with it's clients, but again the question must be asked, Why? Why should Adobe typeset anything? Indesign is a proven product. The fact that I can typeset the Koren Tanakh in it without even thinking about it proves the point. What has InDesign got to prove?
>The end result would be a tangible testimony that the Adobe graphic art software accomplish a massive task of historical proportions. The Talmud is the most massive set of knowledge books, representing much of the body of Jewish wisdom that was ever created, containing more material than even Encyclopedia Britanica.
I appreciate the possible implication of such an endeavor. But it is not where Adobe should be expending its resources. Adobe is primarily a software developer, and a good one at that. As has been said, it is not a typesetter/printer.
I'm afraid that you are looking at the emotional aspects of the project, and not the end result. Although there certainly would be sincere appreciation for such an effort from a niche community, from a larger
business perspective, it just is not a sound investment of Adobe's time and money. Return on such an investment would be (to be honest) minimal, regardless of the good press it might garner in this area.
Adobe's resources should be focused on Adobe's
raison d'être -- software development, workflows and interfaces.
Thank you for your caring and thoughtful response.
Now, your reasoning has shifted here, even though the underlying sentiment response has been consistent. I believes the points of the issue can be logically addressed, and a different conclusion derifed, this though is closer to a case of "you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink".
My nature is to persist until I overcome even where the odds indicate failure to succeed, but I am preoccupied with other matters now. Hence, I will respond later.
> Nobody is currently using Adobe software to create a new edition of the Talmud. So, it is not harming any customers.
> Who says? I'm not in a position to disclose more information, but I can say for a fact that this statement is not true.
There is a clear and open contradiction here. Either, yes, Adobe InDesign is the superior typesetting program, ideal to produce this massive project,
no, Adobe InDesign is a second rate typesetting program (unlike Adobe would like us to believe), not ideal to produce this massive project.
Here, it must be the best thing since the invention of the wheel, as it has in deed been selected over TAG for this massive project.
I believe Raphael is saying a bahbah-mahseh, an expression in Yiddish for wishful thinking. And InDesign ME is heads and shoulders more superior to TAG, and is worthy more than Quark or Ready, Set, Go, to create a new ever-lasting edition of the Talmud.