"Jonathan Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ThML is also still (I think) used by the greatest percentage of our > modules (though that may be changed in the future). ... > Will GBF continue to be supported? I seem to remember that Chris > reported lack of GBF support as a missing feature in BPBible, despite > the fact that I'm sure that I have heard statements suggesting GBF is > very strongly deprecated. How many modules are still GBF?
A couple shell commands will give useful summaries. Refresh main and beta repos in your mod.mgr, then peek in ~/.sword/InstallMgr/*/mods.d. for i in plain gbf thml osis ; do echo $i `grep -i ^sourcetype=$i * | wc -l` done Main: Beta: plain 2 plain 1 gbf 49 gbf 0 thml 163 thml 6 osis 23 osis 93 The reason for the new increase in beta OSIS modules is due to the arrival of 41 new WBT texts 2 days ago -- almost half the beta repo in one shot. Significantly, a couple of really important modules (LXX, for one) are still distributed as GBF. (Aside: All these new WBT texts appear in GS as "unknown" language. Is there a mapping somewhere handy, from "ngu", "tzz", et al to something readable by mere mortals? I'm happy to update GS to accommodate more language definitions but I need a source for them.) >> * OSIS is a growing, maturing standard, addressing the short-comings >> of other popular formats. > And adding some of its own (its complexity comes to mind here, though > possibly that is intrinsic given what it is trying to cover). When I first wanted to start generating modules on my own, I didn't have enough context to know what was intended or preferred, and by plain count (with variations on the grep construct above) I found that GBF was far and away the leading format for Bible texts, so I generated that. Then I learned from reading somewhere, now long forgotten, that GBF was on the way out, and that made ThML a really good choice, especially considering its huge majority overall and (then) substantial majority in Bible texts over OSIS, still not having found any particular source of info for what was preferred. >From then to now, all I generate is ThML. I encountered the OSIS preference by dumb luck somewhere along the way -- this was closely related to finding the forums by dumb luck, because there was no linkage to them at www.crosswire.org -- and I debated changing my scripting habits to generate OSIS. But its complexity alongside my usual module generation scheme stopped me cold. This led to similar thoughts along this line: > Separating presentation from content is a nice idea, but I'm not > convinced that it is good in all cases. What happens with OSIS when a > Bible publisher wants to insist that certain constructs in their Bible > are formatted in certain ways? This is especially true given the wildly different habits embodied in each of the UIs. GS does not format like BT; BT does not format like MS; nothing formats like the Windows UI, mostly because it uses the RTF filters. Numbered footnotes/xrefs, or unlabeled superscripts? Inline footnote content? Verse-per-line display regardless of paragraph markup? Header above Gen 1:1 to identify the text? Underline, italic, bold markup in modules, when RTF provides no underline at all? Permissive markup pass-through, or limiting? Image support in all module types, or just some; and what formats? The deeper problem for me is that, for the vast majority of mere mortals out there, what is wanted in a Bible study tool is readable texts. It's certainly true that OSIS provides more and often different structure that can be de- and re-constructed in more ways. But what Joe Random wants is readability and search capability. It's not clear to me that either of these qualities is better served by OSIS than ThML. _______________________________________________ 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