On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Troy A. Griffitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A few probably-abrasive (pre-apologies) comments on this thread.
... > support for external links: > > There is currently no programmatic features in the engine which help or > hinder external links. Historically there has been a common conceptual > agreement that a 'reference' is to that of a 'general Bible'. > > This needs to change, we all agree. > > The agreed extension is to: > implement support for the key prefix on OSIS tag <reference > osisRef="module:key"> syntax. > > use the prefix to specify a sword module. > determine a set of meta modules like: > bible: > strong: > self: > > default the prefix, if absent to 'bible:' so current modules still work. > > None of this requires engine changes, but rather that we extend the > historical conceptual idea of a reference beyond bible:key. > > This is a frontend change. Just as gnomesword decomposes a reference > from ThML sword://module/key, it should also decompose a reference from > OSIS module:key and accommodate the meta modules above accordingly... as > should all frontends. > > Now, the engine COULD definitely be extended to HELP the frontend > developers decompose these keys by pushing a common concept from our > frontends of 'user preferred strong dictionary', 'user preferred Bible', > etc. down into the engine, and then adding a 'module' component to a > key. This could have the effect of letting our verse parser take care > of the prefix and hand back a ListKey of entries each with appropriate > module components filled in. But this is just a first thought of how we > can help frontend developers support extending the reference concept. > > The fact is, currently MOST frontends, when they see a reference pull up > the user's preferred Bible and show the reference. This logic needs to > change in the frontends. I don't disagree with this, though I believe in general that the link should be shown in the user's preferred Bible. The only cases you should need to refer to a particular version as far as I am aware is where you are commenting on a peculiarity of that version or on its particular text (if they are quoting part of the text inline or relying on particular words from the text then that is probably also a good reason). Anything else and you are probably doing the wrong thing (because in general we should be interested in the user's preferences, not the module author's, since the user is actually using the module). Here are a couple of hypotheticals: 1. The module author believes that the KJV is the one true version, and will always link to the KJV, even though it is not necessarily the best or most comprehensible translation. 2. The module author links to some English Bible that seems best suited to the task, while the reader reads their native language better than English and wants to read it in their native language. If the module referred to isn't installed then it should also fall back to the user's preferred Bible (or more sensibly to the currently selected Bible, however you determine that). Possibly no matter what the reference points to, if it is a Biblical reference it should allow you to open in the current window (or any of the current windows if you have more than one Bible window open), maybe using a right-click menu on the hyperlink. For applications that have only one current Bible window, switching the Bible displayed in that window just because a module author said to could be very disruptive (imagine if it switched to a Bible without an OT and they later thought that the OT had been lost, or if it switched to a Bible without Strong's Numbers or morphology when they were using those). Similarly, if an application pulls up a new window just to display that reference it is likely to be disruptive, possibly breaking up a carefully configured layout, and I contend still has a reasonably high chance of not being what the user wanted (though it may be what the module author wanted). As far as I know, referring to other, non-Biblical modules has never been supported, and I am pretty sure there has been discussion on this list that has said that it is necessary to work this out (feel free to correct me on this, of course). I don't even know if it is possible to refer to the current work, which is obviously a reasonable thing to want to do (e.g. for a dictionary, hyperlink "see also OTHER ARTICLE" to me:OTHER ARTICLE), but again I believe it was said that this isn't supported, and I am not aware of any module that does it. So, short summary of what I think is needed, and am not aware of having: 1. Clear documentation of what the work ID is (is it just the module name? Will we need to support any mappings based on existing OSIS documents that refer to things with names different from module names? (Josephus and various commentaries probably being the most likely candidates for such references)) 2. Support for linking within the current module (you could use the module name, but I am sure that there should be a better way of making it clear that it is an internal link, and it wouldn't surprise me if OSIS supported it). 3. Definition of what key looks like for dictionaries and genbooks (I presume it is the OSIS gen.2.2 style reference for Bibles?) With that we can move on with OSIS without having people say "There is supposed to be a right way, but it isn't really supported." Jon _______________________________________________ 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
