Peter von Kaehne wrote:
The OS support I would simply do as previous - one row only, but maybe with icons to make faster to read. Win95+ or WinXP+ is adequate instead of a whole list of variants (unless newer Wins do not work).
This may seem a minor matter, but I'm not sure whether the current division of 95/98/NT/Me vs. 2000/XP/Vista/7 is correct. If it really is the case that front ends don't work on specifically the former set and do work on the latter, then that's fine, but in my experience the split is slightly different and is less a dichotomy than a gradient.
The case for BibleCS is that you lose Unicode features in the OS as you travel back in time. So from 95 to 98/Me you gain some features, but none of these are really Unicode supporting OSes. NT4 through 7, being all of them based on the original NT 3.1 codebase that supported Unicode from the ground up, all handle Unicode text fairly well and don't require any of the right-to-left hackery included to do proper Hebrew & Arabic display on 9x.
That's all just to say that I'm not sure whether we can collapse these different versions into 2 clear categories--and if so, whether NT4 is in the right category.
--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
