Le 27/01/2022 à 15:07, David Haslam a écrit :
What Karl has observed is a long-standing problem.
Might it be feasible to employ a suitable regular expression to match
the Strong’s H number whether or not it has any leading zero[s]?
This would have to be done under the hood for this type of search, as
it’s quite a different task than a user entered regex search.
But should such a workaround be better implemented in the SWORD API
rather than as a kludge in a front-end?
And if so, how should JSword based front-ends also address the issue?
AndBible reads very well the Strong hebrew numbers.
David
Sent from ProtonMail for iOS
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 13:27, Karl Kleinpaste <k...@kleinpaste.org>
wrote:
I have a Xiphos bug <https://github.com/crosswire/xiphos/issues/1107>
in which the facility to take a Strong's dict entry and search the
Bible module for all its occurrences sometimes works and sometimes
doesn't.
The mechanism is straightforward: Take the key from the dict pane,
note whether this is Heb or Grk, construct e.g. lemma:Hxxxxx, stuff
that into the sidebar search, and execute the search. No sweat.
The problem is with Heb refs. Because of the ancient habit that Heb
Strong's refs are given a leading zero prefix (e.g. "07225") as a
weak discriminant from Grk refs in the same number space, I actually
handle this case explicitly. Strong's module keys are fixed, 5-digit
strings, and the dict pane always shows this. When that key is taken
to build the lemma search, I specifically include the last leading
zero in the Heb case.
This works in KJV and ESV where we find "<w savlm="strong:H07225">In
the beginning</w>".
This fails in NASB and OSHB where we find "<w savlm="strong:H7225">In
the beginning</w>".
Note H07225 vs H7225.
The question revolves around what a Strong's ref ontologically is.
Seriously, what is it?
Is it a number, written naturally with minimal required digits,
stored for convenience in a character string?
Or is it a specific and fixed string of characters?
In terms of module keys, it's a string of characters.
In terms of Bible markup, well... Opinion varies. As we see in this
case, some Bibles encode as a natural number, occupying the normal
(minimal) digits needed, but others take the fixed string approach so
as to include a leading zero, but note that it's not a full, fixed,
5-digit string to match a dict key; it's just one leading zero, no
matter how many natural digits follow. KJV encodes the 1st Heb ref as
"01". Not "1" (natural number) and not "00001" (module key); just "01".
Result is that, by constructing zero-prefixed searches, such searches
always fail in Bibles using natural/minimal digits because there's
never a zero-prefixed match.
This is different from Grk refs, which are stored in dict modules the
same as Heb dict keys -- fixed 5-digit -- but are always marked up as
natural numbers using minimal digits.
As matters stand, I have no /a priori/ means by which to determine
what to expect in a Bible's Heb Strong's markup. The dict pane's key
from which to construct the search is fixed 5 digits. That is at
first trimmed to natural, minimal digits...and then the trouble
starts because I don't have anything like a module conf directive to
tell me whether the module uses zero-prefixed Heb refs or not. I'm
also not aware that we have any standard for such markup to which I
can point to say, "NASB's markup is wrong because it lacks
zero-prefixing on Heb refs."
Help.
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list:sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
