Kahunapule Michael P. Johnson wrote:
Why is a higher standard than a quotation mark? What if both were
used?
is a higher standard because it is the one required by OSIS.
doesn't really have an exact
equivalent, although there is a computationally more difficult way to
specify the same kind of th
I'll give my 2 cents regarding quotation markup. I have over 14 years of
experience in Electronic Publishing. So my comments come from
professional experience in non-theological works.
1) The language of a document may differ from the language of the
reader. The text of the document needs to be
At 20:04 11-08-04, Chris Little wrote:
>Kahunapule Michael P. Johnson wrote:
>Basically, the reason I want to change quotation marks to elements
>in the Sword module is high standards.
Why is a higher standard than a quotation mark? What if both were used?
> We could just run the file
>throu
At 16:41 11-08-04, Chris Little wrote:
>GBF doesn't offer anything that isn't offered by OSIS.
This is not true. GBF has two advantages over pure, unmodified OSIS:
1. GBF can preserve quotation punctuation correctly. Pure unmodified OSIS cannot.
2. GBF is simpler to convert to and generate than OS
Kahunapule Michael P. Johnson wrote:
> Chris, I am in no way saying that GBF is better than OSIS. GBF was
> invented long ago for a specific purpose, which it did well, and was
> even extended to do things that it wasn't designed to do originally.
I know, and I liked GBF a lot for a very long time,
David Blue (Mailing List addy) wrote:
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 01:13 am, Chris Little wrote:
We won't be publishing any additional GBF modules, ever.
I personally take some issue with this statement. Not with it's content but
with it's attitude. It just seems far too...mean spirited and conde
Chris, I am in no way saying that GBF is better than OSIS. GBF was invented long ago
for a specific purpose, which it did well, and was even extended to do things that it
wasn't designed to do originally. I'm actually surprised that GBF still gets as much
use as it does. I don't care if you use
Kahunapule Michael P. Johnson wrote:
Hello, Adrian, Chris, and all:
I probably sounded a bit harsh in my opinion of OSIS, right now. Please forgive me if I have offended anyone who has poured effort into trying to make OSIS work. I'm mostly frustrated because I really want OSIS (or at least a good
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 01:13 am, Chris Little wrote:
> We won't be publishing any additional GBF modules, ever.
I personally take some issue with this statement. Not with it's content but
with it's attitude. It just seems far too...mean spirited and condemning for
my tastes. It says to me
Michael's complaints about OSIS are essentially one of those mote vs.
log in the eye issues. We won't be publishing any additional GBF
modules, ever. GBF is poorly defined and grossly inadequate for our
needs. Sword support of OSIS has easily surpassed support for any other
markup format. S
Hello, Adrian, Chris, and all:
I probably sounded a bit harsh in my opinion of OSIS, right now. Please forgive me if
I have offended anyone who has poured effort into trying to make OSIS work. I'm mostly
frustrated because I really want OSIS (or at least a good open XML Bible format) to
become
Good day,
My personal opinions only. OSIS sounds like a good thing but still seems
aimed at the future. The Windows software has some support for it but is
not complete and involves a performance decrease. At the moment,
progress on new development has stalled. Keeping up support for 'gbf'
form
At 17:43 09-08-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm working on it. I started working on it last week, but it takes time
>to add those elements and fix other OSIS non-conformance issues.
The best way to fix those issues is to change the OSIS standard and change your
reader, in my opinion. Second b
I'm working on it. I started working on it last week, but it takes time
to add those elements and fix other OSIS non-conformance issues. And
updates to the module archive are not possible at the moment, anyway.
In the future, I'll probably maintain the same OSIS document and do
updates by pr
14 matches
Mail list logo
