Jonathan Morgan wrote: > I do think that in general removing the arbitrary chapter limitation > would be a good thing, but these considerations and others could be > important to getting it right. > >
Most modern translations have a passage structure. I have played with this idea: we could have a fixed rough passage division, handled by the Sword library or a frontend. When the user wants to see a chapter the frontend could load the chapter but also preceding and following context so that if the chapter breaks a passage the whole passage would still be shown. It could be something like this: Passage1: 2:5-3:4 Passage2: 3:1-3:20 Passage3: 3:20-4:2 Passage4: 4:2-5:1 If user asks for ch.3 he gets 2:5-4:2. If he asks for ch.4 he gets 3:20-5:1. The frontend decides the visual details. Notice how the passages are not restricted by other passages. This is because it's easier to find a safe, large enough sequence for every verse/chapter. There's another reason, too. Different translations divide the passages differently. This way we would hurt those as little as possible when always choosing a larger, "safe" passage. Even if a translation's passage would be cut, the wanted passage would always be included. This requires some work, of course. The whole Bible would need the passage database. It should have professional quality (modeled in modern academic translations/editions). Pros: - works for all modules which use ch/v. - technically not too difficult to implement - fits well for the existing frontend styles, doesn't need any new UI techniques - no memory/speed overhead Cons: - may break the translation's own passage structure - one size must fit all - database needs work --Eeli Kaikkonen _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
