On 07/20/2012 11:06 AM, Andrew Thule wrote:
One benefit of having markup is that rendering mark-up is left to the
client. Even so, I'm looking at notes in Xiphos, Bibletime and
Alkitab and each treats them slightly different ways.
For example the following note <note n="+"><reference
type="source">8:15</reference></note> is rendered in:
Xiphos as superscript link "*n%2B" (with contents of the note treated
as footnote)
Bibletime as hover link "+" (with the contents of the note in a window
to the left of the main text)
Alkitab as superscript flat text as "+" (with the contents of the note
visible in a column to the left of the main text)
Of the three the Alkitab approach seems to be most in line with what
the OSIS manual says (about keeping notes inline). The Xiphos
behavior complete perplexes me - how is *n%2B constructed? If a
superscript is going to be generated, how can I influence that in the
module?
If Xiphos is really rendering '%2B' instead of '+', then this is a bug.
For some reason, the URL-encoded character is being rendered, rather
than the intended '*n+'
I don't know why you suggest that the notes should be inline, since
you're not specifying the note placement in your example. The manual
doesn't say notes should be rendered inline, just that they are encoded
inline.
In general, I would guess that every Sword front end will ignore the
placement attribute anyway, in favor of its default note placement
location. But I would also guess that no one has ever used the placement
attribute in a Sword module.
This note with out a reference <note type="study">the light from…:
Heb. between the light and between the darkness</note> is rendered in:
Xiphos as superscript link "*n2" (with contents of the note treated as footnote)
Bibletime as hover link * (with the contents of the note in a window
to the left of the main text)
Alkitab as a superscript 'a' (with the contents of the note visible in
a column to the left of the main text)
My (personal) preference would be the Alkitab method, but none of these
are incorrect since your example does not identify what the footnote
marker should be, leaving it to the application to do its default.
The OSIS2 Manual says a little about notes on page 44 section 8.3 but
points out that notes are not sharply defined. Certainly the
treatment of them by clients reflects this. So this raises a question
for OSIS module developers: Doesn't this represent somewhat of a
weakness with the OSIS standard? What exceptions can we have with
respect to notes containing other elements, for example references
with in notes? Doesn't it seems the module developer is at the mercy
of client program a bit too much because of something of a lack of
clarity on the part of the standard?
No, the manual states that note type attributes are not sharply
defined--and proceeds to coarsely define a set of them.
Do you have a specific need for identifying different note types and
treating them differently? We've never seen the need in Sword, except
for treating the crossReference type differently from all other types.
Cross references are separately enumerated and can be toggled
independent of other notes. All other notes are simply treated as 'notes'.
The schema defines what elements are valid within notes.
--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
