Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

On 2016-03-10, 14:12 GMT, DM Smith wrote: > If a module has linked verses (e.g. commentaries may have one > entry that spans several verses) or verses outside of the > versification, then there is no lossless return to module > input. I don’t think this is the case (can you take a look for

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 8:28 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: > > On 2016-03-10, 10:45 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: >> By finding the source and starting from scratch > > There is no source, unless you have it. The module is from > 2003-03-21. > > And we are talking here about s/y/i/ in

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Karl Kleinpaste wrote: > > On 03/10/2016 02:58 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: >> On 2016-03-10, 04:52 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: >>> A module created this way would not be accepted for new import. >> Sorry, which way? What’s wrong? Do you mean,

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

On 2016-03-10, 10:45 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > By finding the source and starting from scratch There is no source, unless you have it. The module is from 2003-03-21. And we are talking here about s/y/i/ in one word. What is the best decompiler of mod files to see what all functionality

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

On 03/10/2016 02:58 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: > On 2016-03-10, 04:52 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: >> A module created this way would not be accepted for new import. > Sorry, which way? What’s wrong? Do you mean, because of using mod2imp? > I will gladly use any better sources I will be pointed to, or

Re: [sword-devel] Song of Solomon missing from ChiNCVt

Many of the unresolved module issues in our tracker were created before the default assignee ceased all his CrossWire acitivities. We were left in the lurch because of this, and it's not an easy task for other hard-pressed volunteers to pick things up from where he left off. As a result, a lot

Re: [sword-devel] Song of Solomon missing from ChiNCVt

I just closed http://www.crosswire.org/tracker/browse/MOD-308 David -- View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Song-of-Solomon-missing-from-ChiNCVt-tp4656171p4656191.html Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

By finding the source and starting from scratch On 10 March 2016 10:29:03 GMT+00:00, "Matěj Cepl" wrote: >On 2016-03-10, 09:31 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: >> Specifically versification is lossy as you now notice. > >So, how is that bug supposed to be fixed? > >Matěj > >--

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

On 2016-03-10, 09:31 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > Specifically versification is lossy as you now notice. So, how is that bug supposed to be fixed? Matěj -- https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mc...@ceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC One reason

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

On 2016-03-10, 08:54 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > We would never export and reimport. Yes > We only ever work one way, because import is lossy. Lovely, so where it the maintainer I should send my (one word) correction to? I know you hate the open source development of modules, but this is

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

Specifically versification is lossy as you now notice. Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity and typos.On 10 Mar 2016 8:54 am, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > > We would never export and reimport. Yes > We only ever work one way, because import is lossy. > > Sent from my phone.

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

We would never export and reimport. Yes We only ever work one way, because import is lossy. Sent from my phone. Apologies for brevity and typos.On 10 Mar 2016 7:58 am, Matěj Cepl wrote: > > On 2016-03-10, 04:52 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > > A module created this way would not

Re: [sword-devel] Help with CzeCEP update (av11n)

On 2016-03-10, 04:52 GMT, Peter von Kaehne wrote: > A module created this way would not be accepted for new import. Sorry, which way? What’s wrong? Do you mean, because of using mod2imp? I will gladly use any better sources I will be pointed to, or contact the module maintainer, but I am afraid