On 08/13/2012 11:09 PM, David Haslam wrote:
The relevant paragraph is,
"In USFM, character level markup can be nested (embedded) within a paragraph
element, or another character element, but (depending on the way in which
the markers are written) does not necessarily cancel out the previous
marker's attributes. Paratext (a UBS translation editor) is not capable of
rendering all of the display variations that would be implied due to
nesting."
It's not relevant to note- or cross-reference-internal markup. In those
cases, the reference is explicit that "Paratext ... will interpret the
presence of a new marker as an implicit closure of any preceding
character level marker."
I can't really conceive how such a dramatic change to USFM is considered
acceptable. And the imprecise hedges like 'not necessarily' in the
quoted paragraph are not terribly reassuring about USFM's reliability as
an archival format. The interpretation of a document encoded in USFM
prior to this change in the reference may have been altered by the
change in the reference, without any action on the part of the encoder.
FWIW, USX explicitly does not permit nesting of character level markup
(<char>). One could encode everything with milestone elements instead of
containers, but the fact the USX schema could easily allow <char>
nesting but doesn't indicates to me that implicit nesting is not an
intended interpretation.
--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
