Troy A. Griffitts wrote: > DM, > Just a quick note: Chris is suggesting TEI because the OSIS group has > proposed adopting TEI lexical tags for inclusion into the OSIS spec. I > suggest either Chris add his work to the existing osis filters making > SWORD OSIS functionality support the proposed new tags, or else invoking > both filters with a config like: > > SourceType=OSIS > LocalOptionFilter=TEI > I like the idea of stacking the filters. Does this work now for Sword? (There is a TEI filter)
And does this allow mixing elements from the two? Specifically, would this allow the having osis <reference> elements in a TEI element? Should this change be part of the 1.5.10? > I like the layout direction you've taken with the NASB lexical work. It > does make the lexica very flexible, as you have suggested. > There are two changes that need to be made: 1) Handle !a notation. It would probably be best to handle it generically for all OSIS references and not just Strong's lemmas. 2) Handle self: as a prefix on an OSIS reference. And should these be part of the 1.5.10 release? > -Troy. > > > > DM Smith wrote: > >> The one change that needs to be done before the NASB is released is the >> handling of Strong's numbers of the form G0019!a. >> >> (As to when I'll be done with the NASB Bible and Lexicons: I have about >> 40hours more work to do on it. So that will be at least a few more >> weeks. Then there will be a QA period of testing. Followed by delivery >> of the modules to Lockman. I don't know how long they will take before >> releasing it.) >> >> I'm not sure what the right implementation should be. But stripping off >> the !a will work fine, but won't work as well as it could. >> >> The NASB lexicons are significantly different in their content from >> Strong's dictionary. It appears that some of the entries have been split >> out into multiple entries. >> >> I'm currently using TEI for the lexicons. When there are multiple >> entries I am doing the following: >> 1) Create a super entry containing entries for each of a, b, c, ..., >> where the key of the super entry is the Strong's Number without the a, >> b, c, ..., and the entries have the a, b, c (but there is no !) on the key. >> 2) Also create a separate entry for each of a, b, c... with the a, b, c >> on the key (but w/o the !) >> >> So ideally a reference to G0019!a would first look for G0019a and >> failing that look for G0019. >> >> The point of doing it this way is that one could use the NASB lexicon >> with any module keyed with Strong's numbers and likewise could use any >> Strong's keyed lexicon with the NASB Bible. >> >> I don't know if there are any needed changes to the TEI Filters to >> render the super entries. >> >> Unfortunately, I don't have the time to make the change to the Sword API. >> >> For example (content obscured deliberately): >> <superentry key="G0019"> >> <entry key="G0019a"> >> <form> >> <orth>....</orth> >> <pron>....</pron> >> </form> >> <etym>....</etym> >> <def>....</def> >> <usg>....</usg> >> </entry> >> <entry key="G0019b"> >> <form> >> <orth>....</orth> >> <pron>....</pron> >> </form> >> <etym>....</etym> >> <def>....</def> >> <usg>....</usg> >> </entry> >> </superentry> >> <entry key="G0019a"> >> <form> >> <orth>....</orth> >> <pron>....</pron> >> </form> >> <etym>....</etym> >> <def>....</def> >> <usg>....</usg> >> </entry> >> <entry key="G0019b"> >> <form> >> <orth>....</orth> >> <pron>....</pron> >> </form> >> <etym>....</etym> >> <def>....</def> >> <usg>....</usg> >> </entry> >> >> >> >> Troy A. Griffitts wrote: >> >>> Agreed. There have been many bug fixes. If anyone would like to get any >>> other fixes in, please do so very soon. >>> >>> -Troy. >>> >>> >>> >>> Karl Kleinpaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Troy A. Griffitts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I should have tested it better before release. My apologies. Thank you >>>>> >>>>> for reporting the problem. I will also have a look at the InstallMgr >>>>> status bars and try to release a new BibleCS within a few days. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Might there be any estimate as to when a new release of the Sword libs >>>> will happen? There have been a number of fixes since last October's >>>> 1.5.9, some of which have significant effects on GnomeSword's >>>> operation. >>>> >>>> A 1.5.10 (or just 1.5.9.1) release would be hugely appreciated soon. >>>> _______________________________________________ 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
