> In response to various open source Bible projects not using Sword as a > basis, I would like to post some propaganda on the website to encourage > people to use Sword rather than build their own solutions from scratch. > It's their right to do so, but I think they do so because of erroneous > or misguided conceptions that I would like to dispell. Please read > through what I have written and contribute ideas and suggestions for > improvement. I'm looking for comments on content, tone, gross > omissions, etc. especially from you folks who actually use Sword to > build software.
Very good idea. I am going to comment on a few statements, please correct me if I'm wrong. > Sword removes much of the burden of designing new Bible software. Most > of the underlying issues, such as search, file access, verse reference > parsing, markup format interchange, i18n/l10n, etc. have already been > dealt with, allowing you the opportunity to focus on interface design > and unique features. Well, i18n and l10n are still quite at the beginning. You should not say "have been dealt with". The versification scheme is still to come -- is that what you mean by l10n? > Custom > translation APIs provide the means for building l10n support in your > applications without needing to add or depend on additional 3rd party > libraries. What are you referring to? > Sword provides a simple to use and easy to learn API. =) I really hope it were so. ;) We should work more on documentation, esp. making the api-ref more complete and explaining. But in general I really agree! Martin
