Jeremy's question was specific to an instance in which PrAzar is embedded within Dan 3, such that they have repeating verse numbers.
Your comments address mapping between different versifications schemes, which, as Troy has pointed out, isn't even in the planning stage yet--and likely won't be until dynamic versification is complete. --Chris Greg Hellings wrote: > Your implementation is simple enough, but it requires that people > reference the verse as being part of the Prayer of Azariah, verse 2 or > verse 8 or so on. In all of the print copies I've seen of the book of > Daniel that include the Prayer of Azariah, the verses of the prayer > simply part of the verses of chapter 3 of Daniel so that the chapter > is expanded out to about 100 or so verses. I have never seen the > repetition of numbering, except when the complete version is giving > the alternate schemes. When I have seen it, the verses have been > along the lines of > > 1 > 2 > 3 > . > . > . > 23 > 24 - The prayer begins here, or at whichever verse > 25 > 26 > 27 > . > . > . > 96 > 97 - Here is the end of the prayer (or at whatever actual verse # it is) > 98 or 24* > 99 or 25* > . > . > . > > The * usually references a footnote where the explanation that the > Hebrew does not contain the prayer, and so it uses the second > numbering scheme. > > The Prayer of Azariah is not a separate work nor included as its own > chapter. What would the module behave like if someone references > Daniel 3:88, which is beyond the scope of the chapter in versions that > Protestants and Hebrews use, and therefore is not available because > the module creator used your numbering scheme? Or, what if your > proposed scheme is used and someone references Daniel 3: 30, which > appears in the Hebrew/Protestant as the last verse in the chapter or > in the Greek/Catholic as an early portion of the prayer of Azariah? > > That could either be left to the VerseTreeKey implementor to give > these specifics, or there could be some mechanism designed so that the > module creator could specify that. Which is preferable? I would tend > toward allowing the module creator implement whatever scheme they > desire, but make standardized recommendations (those already made in > the OSIS doc referenced earlier) for possible mappings that could be > made specifically for cases like these. > > Then, if the module creator decided to, when a verse was referenced as > PrAzar 1:8, it could be automatically translated into Daniel 3:31, or, > at the module creator's discretion, a reference to Daniel 3:31 could > be translated to PrAzar 1:8. Then, in this case, we might recommend > that the person specify mappings so that, if PrAzar was implemented as > separate from Daniel 3, then > > Daniel 3:24-30 KJV -> Daniel 3:97-104 (again, or whatever the real verses are) > Daniel 3:24-96 -> PrAzar 1:1-72 > > If the module creator had implemented the Prayer as part of Daniel 3 > then the mappings could specify > > PrAzar 1:1-72 -> Daniel 3:24-96 > Daniel 3:24-30 KJV -> Daniel 3:97-104 > > Alternatively, the module creator could just not specify any mappings, > and if someone references the passage in a manner that is not > available in the module's implementation, then they are out of luck. > > It might not be entirely elegant, but it does allow for flexibility. > And certainly the mappings file could contain nearly any mappings that > the module creator suggested. I think that the more leeway we give > the module creators, then the more appealing the implementation will > be, as long as it's not inaccessibly complicated. > _______________________________________________ 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
