Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > David Haslam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There are needed some improvements in punctuation - >> eg. sometimes there's no space after a full-stop in the jvn module. > > That might be legitimate in those languages; I wouldn't know. But the > modules' *.conf mention that one ought to use a certain font (Charis > SIL) because of language-specific weirdnesses. These look like upstream conversion errors. And while it would probably be easy for us to simply fix them and move on, I think we want to hold to the principle of using the data we receive as it is and sending potential bug reports back to the provider. The need for Charis SIL (and, indeed, the most recent version of Charis SIL) stems from the use of PUA codepoints in SIL content. They have an institutional PUA policy in place. At least some of this content required use of the PUA at the time of encoding. As of Unicode version 5.1, many codepoints that SIL employed in the PUA have received official (non-PUA) codepoints in the Unicode Standard. All of the WBTI content was run through TECkit to convert SIL PUA codepoints to Unicode 5.1, where possible. So there is less PUA usage than the was in the data delivered to us. However, some of that data still requires a font with all of the formerly PUA codepoints in their new Unicode 5.1 positions. That essentially means we need a Unicode 5.1 font. Yet, there will remain some PUA codepoints in the data, meaning we also need an SIL Unicode font (since they generally include the PUA codepoints if it's appropriate to the script repertoire of a give font). Thus we need an SIL font that supports Unicode 5.1, of which there are two that I'm aware of: Charis SIL: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=CharisSIL_download#FontsDownload and Doulos SIL: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=DoulosSIL_download#FontsDownload Charis SIL is better than Doulos SIL for the simple reason that it includes bold, italic, and bold italic fonts, whereas Doulos SIL does not. Older versions of Charis SIL and indeed other fonts, such as Times New Roman, are likely to work perfectly well for some of the Bibles, but Charis SIL was the targeted font during conversion. --Chris _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
