Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread DM Smith
> Analysis tools such as *mod2imp* and *diatheke* take the *module >>name* >> > as the main command line argument. >> > >> > Not the filename of the .bzz files in the . >> > >> > i.e. Your command should be given in the context of th

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread Tom Sullivan
autocorrects. Original Message Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion From: Tom Sullivan To: sword-devel@crosswire.org CC: Thank you for the replies. I got an output using -r OSIS, but it does not look good or useful. My goal was to look at the OSIS used, for example

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread ref...@gmx.net
urrent directory.> > Best regards,> > David> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.> >> ---- Original Message >> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion>> Local Time: 30 December 2017 7:48 PM>> UTC Time: 30 December 2017 19:48>>

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread DM Smith
02:58 PM, David Haslam wrote: >>To pick up on one possible misunderstanding by Tom, >>Analysis tools such as *mod2imp* and *diatheke* take the *module >>name* as the main command line argument. >> Not the filename of the .bzz files in the . >>

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread Tom Sullivan
word path_ as the current directory. Best regards, David Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email. Original Message Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion Local Time: 30 December 2017 7:48 PM

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread Michael H
he context of the _sword path_ as >> the current directory. >> >> Best regards, >> >> David >> >> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email. >> >> Original Message >>> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion >>

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread Tom Sullivan
Email. Original Message Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion Local Time: 30 December 2017 7:48 PM UTC Time: 30 December 2017 19:48 From: dmsm...@crosswire.org To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel@crosswire.org> Not really. The osis2mod process is los

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread David Haslam
. Best regards, David Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. > Original Message > Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion > Local Time: 30 December 2017 7:48 PM > UTC Time: 30 December 2017 19:48 > From: dmsm...@crosswire.org > To

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread David Haslam
ed several years ago. In any case, the way we operate as a Society, there is rarely a need for back conversion. Best regards, David Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. > Original Message ---- > Subject: [sword-devel] Back conversion > Local Time: 30 Dec

Re: [sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread DM Smith
Not really. The osis2mod process is lossy (no verse markers) and transformative (it is in milestoned form). For that reason, we really don’t recommend it. Also, many OSIS modules are built from non-OSIS source. mod2imp expects the module to be installed. Beyond that I’m not sure. mod2osis

[sword-devel] Back conversion

2017-12-30 Thread Tom Sullivan
Y'all: Is there a way to convert a module in .bzz format back to OSIS. I tried mod2imp, but the help message does not say how to input a module. The name of the module fails, as do .bzz files. Thanks. -- Tom Sullivan i...@beforgiven.info FAX: 815-301-2835 - Great News!