On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Daniel Owens <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, I think I understand better. I think the main concern with keeping a > variant as a toggled option is that it be searchable and able to be queried > for lemma and morphology. As long as that can happen in a note, I'm happy > with keeping it there. I think it makes sense that way, but I can see the > other side of it. I think the engine should support both variants in notes > and as an option to toggle.
I'm not sure I understand all the issues involved here, but is it really possible right now to do searching in footnotes for lemmas and morphology? At the very least, it would definitely require changes in Xiphos to accomplish this, no doubt adding to our already quite confusing search interface. Right now, it seems that we can do attribute search for either footnotes, strong's numbers, or morphology; I believe (but could be wrong) that this directly maps to the engine's functionality. I'm not sure how we would search in the footnotes for morphology. (not to mention, that in a module like this, you would probably want to search both the main text *and* the footnotes at the same time; this would take 2 searches, wouldn't it?) It would seem keeping them in the main text would be better if these concerns are correct. Matthew _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
