I don't think it is a good idea to hold all the translations in the
conf. I think translations should be in separate files. I think that
this will minimize corruption, aid maintenance of the files and speed
loading of the confs.
I would like to suggest that we *consider* the *design* of Java's
Previously I have done a lengthy study of the confs of our public modules.
Based upon that I would like to make some observations:
Please correct me where I am wrong, especially wrt the Sword program.
I am very familiar with the JSword software.
1) The keys for each field need to be fixed and not
This was how things developed and has since been the intentional format.
English and original language texts get no language prefix. Other texts
get a prefix consisting of the first three letters of the language name
in English. A few modules (usually Bibles in languages that are unlikely
to ha
Daniel Glassey wrote:
Hi,
Being an English speaker it wasn't obvious, but all the works (also
known as modules) descriptions are in English. Surely the descriptions
should be in the language of the people who will use the works?
Some of them actually are already in the vernacular. And it actuall
Another, perhaps related, issue. A number of our modules has no prefixed name
(mainly English, Greek, Hebrew, Latin), and others have a prefixed name, but
not with the 2-Letter standard Locale code (e.g. GerLut instead of Lut-DE or
DE-Lut). Was this intentional or is it just how things developed
Good point, Daniel.
mg
> Hi,
> Being an English speaker it wasn't obvious, but all the works (also
> known as modules) descriptions are in English. Surely the descriptions
> should be in the language of the people who will use the works?
>
> Here's what I suggest. For any new modules or module
