I think that the plan is a good one. We are dealing with a large amount of redundant code in the case of parallel displays. However, what if two different front-ends want to display the parallel text in different ways? BibleCS does an internlinear display, but presents that verse-by-verse. What if one person wants to do them in parallel columns (doesn't MacSword do that?) and another wants to do interlinear, but by lines rather than verse? I think that would be the strongest argument against pushing the functionality back into the API.
Of course, it might be possible to push some of the parallel function back into the API while still allowing that freedom for the front-ends to maintain freedom of how they display the parallel passages. But all the ways of doing that that I can think of amount to only a minimal saving of code for the front-ends.
My $.02.
--Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
