Tom Cornell wrote: > I'm using BibleTime 1.6.5.1, compiled with (I'm pretty sure) Sword > 1.5.11. I don't think the problem can be in the front end, because the > ESV module behaves just fine in this regard. So I'm pretty sure there > is a wrinkle in the OSIS code that the ESV compilers got right and I > have gotten wrong.
The description of the problem makes me initially suspect a frontend or filter problem. That could be the case, even if the ESV looks right. The other (very good) possibility is a problem with the importer. DM just did a rather radical update to osis2mod (and by "just", I mean since 1.5.11). So my first question would be: are you using osis2mod from 1.5.11 (or another release) or are you compiling it from SVN? Another piece of data that would help us to analyze where the bug is (and I'm fairly certain it's a bug in someone's code) would be a chunk of data from the module itself (post osis2mod). You can get at this by running mod2imp on your module. Then search the resulting .imp file for an example of the misbehaving data and post a snippet to the list. Since you have headings, there should definitely have been some manipulation of the data by osis2mod. It's just hard to guess what it might have done wrong (if that's the case). In the near term, if you just want to get things working, you might try the other recent version of osis2mod (so, SVN if you used 1.5.11 or 1.5.11 if you used SVN). > My markup looks like this, basically: > > ... > </div> > <div type="section"> > <title>The Section Title</title> > <verse sID="..." .../>...<verse eID="..."/> > ... > </div> This markup is definitely correct. More long-term, DM and I are in agreement that we need to change the way we handle storage of OSIS documents within modules. We feel we need to get away from the pre-verse hacks that you'll notice in the output from mod2imp. And we feel we need to do a better job of preserving all of the data in a document (including the <verse> tags themselves). When I committed a new version of osis2mod 3-4 years ago that did all of this (in a way that neither harmed existing nor future data) it was roundly rejected and reverted. I'm still convinced that preservation, including storing <verse>, is the only solution to certain of our problems. And I'm hoping that DM and I can convince the naysayers of the merits of that position. --Chris _______________________________________________ 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
