Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: > Limiting the possibilities is probably a good decision. The list should > be carefully crafted. I think it should be based on the amount of > modules and amount of users. Most languages have only one or two > modules. How about giving only 4 languages: English, German, Ancient > Greek (not modern as it is now!), Old Hebrew. The ancient languages > could be bundled together, but is it too much work to create language > "bundles"?
I have added all languages where we wither have several modules already or have some in "waiting". > > I would like to see possibility to sort the list according to module > type OR language. If I try to find all Finnish modules (hypothetical - > there are only Bibles) I don't like browsing through several categories. > Actually the browser Find function is the only easy way to find modules. > I guess quite many people want to find all available modules for their > language. See above. If your language has several modules it should be in the list. > > There are many language names which my Firefox doesn't show correctly: > Chinantec, Ozumac?n > Kekch? > Are they really utf-8? Answered last email. > If the module is in Beta repository it should be marked explicitly. Getting closer to it. > The zip packages were discussed already. I think this should be changed: > "Windows users should click on the link in the WINDOWS column, while > Linux users should click on the link in the RAW Zip column." > Instead it shoud be clearly stated that application module managers are > preferred and some instruction given how to install using the zip files. Done. Peter _______________________________________________ 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
