On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Jonathan Morgan <jonmmor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Chris Little <chris...@crosswire.org> wrote: >> Basically, alternate versification support is phase 1. Mapping between >> versifications is phase 2. > > And I'm saying I don't believe it is ready for use without phase 2.
And what I heard when you say that is that you don't believe Genbooks are good for Phase 1, however all your arguments are that Phase 2 isn't implemented yet. Genbooks are excellent for this type of thing - they already exist in SWORD, they allow for arbitrary key content, they allow for each Bible to have its own system of versification... which is the right way to implement a Bible. Having any sort of programmer-dictated requirement for versification is inherently wrong. Providing the mapping is, except perhaps for those versions that do adhere to the major "standards," a job that only the module creator can do. Once that is implemented, all of your concern over whose reference this is and what it points to can run through a reference translator if the front-end developer desires or can be left in its provided form and placed into the user's preferred module - regardless of whether the results make sense. That problem is, I believe, best left to the front-end developer to decide. Getting module-creator preferred target module should come from the library, but whether or not to use that is up to the front-end. >From what I hear from all of your comments, once the inter-version mapping exists, your problems will be handled. Whether that's implemented as an offset from our concept of "standard" or provided on a case-by-case basis by the module creators doesn't seem to be decided yet. --Greg _______________________________________________ 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
