I would agree, certainly with the two minor versions, maybe update the web but drop the other twoPeterSent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects. Original Message Subject: [sword-devel] Modules WEB, WEBBE, WEBMEFrom: David Haslam To: sword-devel
Given that these 3 modules are way out of date and not maintained, and in view
of our close collaboration with Michael J by our support of the eBible.org
repository, isn’t it long overdue to withdraw them ?
cf. The most up to date editions of the WEB modules can be installed directly
from the
I would tend to agree with Greg and possibly with Michael, too. That USFM was created for Bibles is neither here nor there. It can be used fine for other purposes. the structures we need are all available. Whether the path via USFM is a good one for books I am not sure, but it is an intriguing
It’s a book - hence GenBook.
It’s not a Commentary.
USFM simply doesn’t apply to the work in focus or to others that I have in mind.
There are a few Scripture references in the text.
David
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 20:19, Michael H wrote:
> For whay it's worth, I
For whay it's worth, I promote usfm for exactly the reasons being
discussed here. Ease of editing and semantic tags.
The biggest reason not to use markdown for genbooks is the inability to
properly link references to scripture. Since the whole point of having gen
books in the sword platform is
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:55 PM David Haslam wrote:
> Ah - but though MarkDown is largely used for presentational purposes,
> there’s a sense in which it is almost as well structured as (e.g.) USFM.
> It’s just that the structures are more general than particular to Bibles.
>
Comparison to
Ah - but though MarkDown is largely used for presentational purposes, there’s a
sense in which it is almost as well structured as (e.g.) USFM. It’s just that
the structures are more general than particular to Bibles.
Take headings, e.g.
# is equivalent to \s1
## is equivalent to \s2
### is
