o: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
Sent: 1/7/09 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Concerns about Alternate Versification
As an aside - the simplest way to deal with alternate versification and
parallel display would be to decouple (at least potentially) parallel
column displa
As an aside - the simplest way to deal with alternate versification and
parallel display would be to decouple (at least potentially) parallel
column displays.
Poeple who deal regularly with translations which use diverging
versificatins are probably well aware of the versification differences
and
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Greg Hellings
>>> wrote:
> 4. Bible references from commentaries, etc. use this mast
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Greg Hellings
>> wrote:
4. Bible references from commentaries, etc. use this master versification.
>>>
>>> Then the module creator needs to go
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
>>> 4. Bible references from commentaries, etc. use this master versification.
>>
>> Then the module creator needs to go through and convert all of their
>> references to that master vers
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Eeli Kaikkonen
wrote:
> Familie von Kaehne wrote:
>> Not correct. The TSK or any other reference work will have used an
>> underlying particular versification - even if this is not documented.
>
> Not only that, but TSK uses explicitly several versifications. It ref
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Chris Little wrote:
>>> Basically, alternate versification support is phase 1. Mapping between
>>> versifications is phase 2.
>>
>> And I'm saying I do
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Chris Little wrote:
> Basically, alternate versification support is phase 1. Mapping between
> versifications is phase 2.
>
> Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>>
>> I am also concerned about the choice of using Genbooks to represent
>> books, just based (as far as I can tell)
Eeli wrote:
Should the frontend give possibility to change the default v11n? Users
may have accustomed to a certain scheme and would like to use it for
all modules so that they can use their favorite translation and still
find references in other modules easily.
IMO: It would be good if the
Hi there ...
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
Exactly: and I say that is the wrong argument to use. We should have
something that suits the problem, and I'm not convinced Genbook does.
I think there may be a lack of understanding here: GenBook is poroposed
as using the new versetreekey code which
Greg Hellings wrote:
So how do we label them? ""? Because the
reason that they're in that version is because they're probably
considered canonical by someone.
Just to qualify what I said previously about the purpose of the
canonical attribute: it's intended to identify the canonicity of a
s
Familie von Kaehne wrote:
Not correct. The TSK or any other reference work will have used an
underlying particular versification - even if this is not documented.
Not only that, but TSK uses explicitly several versifications. It refers
to LXX with LXX versification. It's indicated by "book c
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Chris Little 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
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Chris Little 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.
Jon
___
sword-devel mailing l
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>> Executive summary: I do not believe that alternate versification is
>> useful without mapping between versifications, and I am not convinced
>> that it is useful doing alternate versif
Basically, alternate versification support is phase 1. Mapping between
versifications is phase 2.
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
I am also concerned about the choice of using Genbooks to represent
books, just based (as far as I can tell) on the fact that we already
have Genbook support. Is there any t
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> Executive summary: I do not believe that alternate versification is
> useful without mapping between versifications, and I am not convinced
> that it is useful doing alternate versification with Genbooks.
>
> All of the work and discussion t
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Familie von Kaehne wrote:
> Jonathan Morgan wrote:
>> Executive summary: I do not believe that alternate versification is
>> useful without mapping between versifications, and I am not convinced
>> that it is useful doing alternate versification with Genbooks.
>>
>>
Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> Executive summary: I do not believe that alternate versification is
> useful without mapping between versifications, and I am not convinced
> that it is useful doing alternate versification with Genbooks.
>
> All of the work and discussion that I have seen on alternate
> v
Executive summary: I do not believe that alternate versification is
useful without mapping between versifications, and I am not convinced
that it is useful doing alternate versification with Genbooks.
All of the work and discussion that I have seen on alternate
versification to date has been conce
20 matches
Mail list logo
