I don't recall ever hearing of "NoParagraphs". But I am old now and
quite possibly could have forgotten.
The push back on my side of this is from the desire to:
a) keep the .conf generation only as complex as needed, and
b) avoid the possibilities for inconsistencies.
SWORD accumulates toggleable features from all installed modules and
presents them from:
SWMgr::getGlobalOptions()
This will only return a list of available options from installed
modules, even if the software supports more options.
In the frontends I have written, I call this method, and typically
present an application toolbar for global toggling of these features.
Many frontends decide that their user might want to toggle these
features on a per-module basis, instead of globally, and while my
preference is otherwise, I am happy to have frontends which support both
methodologies.
I am not happy to have computed values in the .conf file. This makes
independent module publishing more difficult. I've already reluctantly
gone down that road for "InstallSize", which if not present merely has
the side-effect of saying something like "Unknown" in the installer. If
we start writing code which depends upon computed values and the
publisher forgets to add "Feature=Headings" in the .conf file-- making
it inconsistent with what actually is in the module, what are the results?
I am not sure I am convinced of a need to precompute the existence of
all possible OSIS tags within a document that a frontend might wish to
expose user features against-- which is the logical end to this request.
The Feature tags which exist were added for specific use cases.
Select your preferred Greek Lexicon: [ modules(@Feature=GreekDef) ]
Select your preferred Hebrew Lexicon: [ modules(@Feature=HebrewDef) ]
Select your preferred Chinese Glossary: [
modules(@Lang=zh,@Feature=Glossary ]
etc.
The OptionFilter tags are used by a publisher to state that they would
like a user to be able to toggle certain features within their module.
These are what register option for the getGlobalOptions mentioned above.
Troy
Troy
On 06/03/2013 02:55 PM, DM Smith wrote:
I saw that Scope was yanked from the wiki with a comment that it had been
rejected. I really don't remember it being rejected. I just remember that the
discussion never went anywhere so it was dropped. I documented the desire of
that discussion by putting an entry into the wiki. Even if engine support is
given for determining this by examining a module, it will be far slower than
having a declaration in the conf. On phones (low powered devices), such
discovery is much too expensive and needs to be cached on a per module basis so
that it is not recomputed.
I still think that it is very needed. I'm getting tired of how such discussions
go.
I'm not at all clear why NoParagraphs was added as a Feature for the frontends
to use. I don't remember any discussion of it here. I don't see the need for
it. A frontend can examine each and every verse to see if there is paragraphing
or other such structural elements that imply paragraphing. I have no intention
of using it for the KJV. At least not without community discussion and buy-in.
How is NoParagraphs any different than NoIntroductions (or Introductions) !!!!!
In Him,
DM Smith
On Jun 2, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Chris Little <chris...@crosswire.org> wrote:
On 6/2/2013 9:23 AM, Chris Burrell wrote:
Hi
Some books have Bible introductions. Can I suggest adding a flag to the
conf file to indicate this is the case? In the similar mindset as a
previous post, I'd prefer being able to query the conf file for features
of a particular module rather than having to read part of the module and
hope for that particular book/chapter to have an introduction. A yes/no
flag in the .conf file would be helpful.
(In particular, I have in mind the book introductions that are part of
the ESV text). But no doubt other modules will also (or in the future
will also) have the same aspects.
Chris
I would say no. This doesn't add anything.
Identifying that a module possesses introductions at some level does not
indicate that it possesses all of the introductions at that level. Accordingly,
knowing that a module possesses introductions still requires checking for
non-empty contents in order to know that a particular introduction is non-empty.
This is along the lines of the request for a Scope .conf entry, which was
already rejected. Whatever solution is used for that case can also be used for
introductions.
--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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
