Troy A. Griffitts wrote: > The pros in the schema are wrong. I'm sure I've asked Patrick to change > them. The actual spec has: > > <xs:attribute name="osisRefWork" type="osisWorkType" use="optional" > default="Bible"/>
Ok. Prose errors aren't unheard of. A second issue you raised, concerning standard meta workID values: What should we go with? You mention: bible: strong: self: For the first, I'm going to argue for Bible:. The spec uses it, as you quoted. I've used it in a lot of shipping content. And, inevitably someone will come along and ask why we have Bible lowercased--we'll say "it's our camel-casing standard" and they'll respond "so hate Jesus?" For the second, I have no preference, so long as we pick & standardize on one. I think the filters recognize half a dozen options. There's a "Strong" module now/soon, which might be an argument against "Strong:", since then "Strong:" could point to that module specifically, while "strong:" (for example) points to the user's preferred lexicon for Strong's numbers (Strong, NASlex, etc.). The manual includes an instance of "s:" but I suspect Todd is the source of that. That's concise, if not necessarily clear. And "strong:" of course is very clear. For the last, I'm sure I've seen "this:". But again that might be Todd's work rather than anything we need necessarily follow. Programmers will definitely understand it. Non-programmers might better understand "self:" as you propose. (To summarize my opinions: I strongly favor "Bible:", weakly favor "strong:" (strongly disfavor "Strong:", and have no opinion on "self:" vs. "this:".) Other opinions, from encoders especially, and particularly those who may have used any of the above, would be welcomed. --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
