My apologies Karl. I hesitated to even comment. My intent wasn't to demean the quality, but simply to state what you have stated below. I personally know that mobiles, swordweb, and BibleCS don't support maps (generally images) very well. We've discussed a better format than image modules for maps and some century might get around to implementing something, but Xiphos just goes out and releases something. That's not a bad thing. I think you claim that characterization with your head high. It's just not something we can put on CrossWire and officially support yet. Same goes with ThML vs. OSIS. Our policy is to work toward OSIS/TEI modules, but this takes ages. I'm happy for you to release before us in some other format, as it hasn't been a disruptions as all on our support list (likely due to the testing you mention). The final thing I didn't mention were modules like Gill. We've had trouble with tracking down a Gill module with a clean pedigree (well, maybe 'cleared' pedigree is a better word). Whereas, Xiphos is also braver is this regard to challenge legitimate copyright claims. Didn't mean to insult, just to set apart with a brief statement that I see could have been taken not as I had intented. My apologies.
Troy -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Karl Kleinpaste <k...@kleinpaste.org> wrote: I've really had to think about this one a while before following up, and I have to say that I just don't know from where some ideas emanate. "Troy A. Griffitts" <scr...@crosswire.org> writes: > The Xiphos repo hosts brave modules which give newer features, but > which might not yet be fully tested on all platforms (I hope this is a > fair characterization). Well... No, not really. Not even close, for at least 3 qualifiers. I don't know how the adjective "brave" comes into use here. It's just a set of ~70 modules in need of a distribution home. Some of them are stupefyingly ordinary, some are extraordinarily large, some have styles of content that aren't found anywhere else. We've got the only maps modules, for example. As for "newer features," er, no -- generally, they use no markup that isn't commonly seen in many others. A larger than usual number are ThML instead of OSIS, for what we consider good and practical reasons that I won't belabor now, which certainly puts to bed any idea that we're exploiting capability not already in use elsewhere. I don't grasp from where the idea of "not tested on all platforms" comes. Since I began producing modules of my own, in 2006, I've regularly tested with Xiphos, BibleCS, BibleTime, and sometimes BibleDesktop. I figure that at least one of those would show a problem if there was something actually wrong. I've so seldom seen display problems occur that, these days, I no longer test modules beyond Xiphos and BibleCS. This *persistent* but *false* idea that modules found in Xiphos repo are untested is particularly disturbing and annoying to me. Download a few modules in your favorite frontend, experiment, and find me any problem. Then, and only then, resume complaining about problems of insufficient testing. We who have authored modules for public use that are distributed from Xiphos repo are, in fact, just as good at such tasks as anyone else producing modules present in any other repo. _____________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
