Then append "!m" to the osisID value in each milestone.
This would be somewhat similar to how we might use the fine grain extension to
give an ID to a title.
It's still evident that osisRef was simply incorrect.
Regards,
David
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 14:20,
<<< text/html; charset=utf-8: Unrecognized >>>
___
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
To have some clearer understanding of what is meant I have reformatted the
snippet. Maybe this helps others too.
Лекин бирәр йемәкликкә шәк кәлтүрүп туруп, йәнә шу йемәкликни
йегән киши вижданиниң
әйиплишигә учрайду. Чүнки у киши өзи йегән йемәкликниң
Quite so!
And having studied the six instances where UYC.xml failed to validate on
account of osisRef within a milestone element,
it does seem to me that what was required in each place is an osisID.
The milestone element location is not altogether different to the value of the
attribute,
save
Semantics:
osisID marks the address of the current item.
osisRef points the address of a different item that the current item references.
I think that the osis manual gives a suggested mechanism for two v11ns in the
same document. My computer is in the shop and I cannot check.
— DM Smith
From
Thanks Horst for explaining.
Why is osisRef used rather than osisID ?
The latter would be valid to the schema.
David
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 06:22, Horst Sclemmer
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's good to see this discussion going on.
> I try to briefly explain the need
