On 1/8/2010 11:22 AM, Matthew Talbert wrote:
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
I don't think it is possible at this point, but the K/Q variants should
be searchable, in my opinion. That's why it is a concern. I would think,
though, that from a front-end perspective a simple option to include
variants or footnotes could be added. After all, the notes are with the
main text in the module. They are just displayed differently in the
front-end, right? This could be revealing my ignorance, of course. If it
is, then putting them in the main text makes sense.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
