Hello All,
I have an idea that I am interested in pursuing. I would like to
be able to put copies of the Apocrypha and Psuedopigrapha into Sword
possibly as General Book modules. A reason for my desire to accomplish
this is that they could be referenceable via Diatheke (The Website
interfac
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> ? ? ?? ?...
> ALLA TOUTO ESTIN TO EIRHMENON...
> >But< ALLA
> >this< TOUTO
> >is< ESTIN
> >that< TO
> >which_was_spoken< EIRHMENON
>
> Let me know if you'd tag it differently.
>
"eirhmenon" = "that which was spoken". The ar
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Keith Ralston wrote:
> I had placed the question of implied verbs to the group. No one responded.
> In each of these cases, I am comfortable with my method for handling the
> tags. I am looking for consensus in order that we might have consistency.
>
Consistency is very imp
> > As Daniel already pointed out, this aint gonna happen until somebody
goes
> > ahead and takes charge of it.
>
> To comment on both messages, I don't think anyone should take charge of
> handling specific graphic format decoders/rasterizers or anything of that
> sort. I think we need to move
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Martin Gruner wrote:
> > IMHO, PNG support along with PS or PDF support would be wonderful. PNG is
> > great for pictures and the like, and PS is great for scalable maps and
> > diagrams. It would work to our advantage to support multiple formats,
> > methinks.
>
>
> As Da
> IMHO, PNG support along with PS or PDF support would be wonderful. PNG is
> great for pictures and the like, and PS is great for scalable maps and
> diagrams. It would work to our advantage to support multiple formats,
> methinks.
As Daniel already pointed out, this aint gonna happen until so
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 21:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As for the format to use, PNG is free, and is well supported these
> days.
IMHO, PNG support along with PS or PDF support would be wonderful. PNG is
great for pictures and the like, and PS is great for scalable maps and
diagrams. It
I found what appears to be a bug in the RSV module. John 5.4 is not present
in the RSV or the NRSV (and please, let's not get into a theology debate on
textual emendations. I have finals this week.) However, the module has
John 5.5 in place of 5.4, 5.6 in place of 5.5, etc. This throws off the
v
