This sounds fine to me. I've added Bible, Commentary, Lexicon, and Other
category values to Wiki. They should take default values when no
explicit Category is named, so I've added a task item to the bugtracker
regarding the addition of defaulting code to the library.
--Chris
Eeli Kaikkonen wr
peter wrote:
> A useful change in the main library would be to allow composite modules
> which have one bulky resource (e.g. an image directory) and multiple
> access indeces and subsequently are subject to several technical
> categories. Once this becomes possible and more widespread we should
>
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, peter wrote:
> I think the technical capabilities of the various module forms are so
> vastly different and strictly separated, while the front ends at the
> moment so closely tied in their GUI layout to these capabilities, that
> it makes very little sense to create and prese
I think the technical capabilities of the various module forms are so
vastly different and strictly separated, while the front ends at the
moment so closely tied in their GUI layout to these capabilities, that
it makes very little sense to create and present at this stage semantic
categories.
Havi
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Martin Gruner wrote:
> HI Eeli,
>
> IMO we should hide the technical detail from the users. For them, only the
> "logical" function is interesting.
Of course, though actually our frontend needs also the technical
distinction: we have to offer the list of the works to add to
HI Eeli,
IMO we should hide the technical detail from the users. For them, only the
"logical" function is interesting.
am Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2007 um 21:03 schrieben Sie:
> Looking at both wiki .conf section and BibleTime code I noticed that
> there is no strict logic in module categories. Sev
