Well, it may be a poor markup choice on my part, but the Strongs modules
are marked up the same way. I was just following the established pattern.
I can see a couple of reasons to include a title in addition to the key:
- Normally attributes are not displayed, only the content of elements,
except @n in TEI and sometimes @osisID in OSIS genbooks (?)
- I could see cases in which a lexicon key would not be identical to its
title or head term, such as a full BDB module keyed to Strongs. The use
of Strongs numbers in that case would be purely for the software to find
the correct entry from a Bible tagged with Strongs numbers, not a part
of the actual lexicon entry.
I guess the argument for displaying them is that you need to know what
they are to navigate the lexicon. I suppose that is a good reason to
display the attribute.
Any thoughts? I can change the markup if that is the consensus.
Daniel
On 04/28/2012 10:38 AM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
I just installed BDBGlosses_Strongs, and I find the formatting choice
very odd. Is this inherent to TEI, is it a poor filter implementation,
or is this a poor choice for how to encode?
We hardly need the element key repeated twice, once bold and once
regular, in each element. What's the point of this?
Entry source:
$$$H4899
<entryFree n="H4899"><title>H4899</title> <foreign xml:lang="he">מָשִׁיחַ</foreign> <hi
rend="italic">anointed</hi></entryFree>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
