On 6/3/2013 5:55 AM, 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.
This is the message in which I would say that scope gets rejected:
http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2012-February/037148.html
None of Troy's concerns are addressed, and the rest of the thread
devolves into off-topic irrelevancy. Scope has certainly not risen to
the level of being a part of our .conf spec.
If you feel that Scope should still be under consideration, I encourage
you to address Troy's objections.
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) !!!!!
They're quite different. There are an order of magnitude more verses
than introductions. Knowing whether to render a particular chapter (or
other view scope) as VPL or paragraphed would require doing a substring
search through every single verse of the module in order to maintain
consistent rendering across chapters. So that would make it about a 3-4
orders of magnitude more work than checking for introductions at run
time. (Compare the number of bytes per Bible times the number of
paragraphing elements to the number of chapters per Bible. That's the
difference in the order of work.)
Feature=NoParagraphs was discussed in 2009. Literally no one disagreed
with the proposal to add *something*. David asked about a feature like
this a few weeks back, prompting me to add the discussed and generally
approved-of feature to the wiki. I went with NoParagraphs rather than
Paragraphs because it's clearly the marked case and the fallback
behavior for existing content will be the current behavior.
Original discussion thread here:
http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2009-November/033058.html
It's informational for front end developers, so there are no implied
conformance requirements. If you want to render the KJV incorrectly by
default in Bible Desktop, that's your choice.
--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
