Dear all, There are a bunch of sometimes confused and sometimes confusing comments currently on a variety of threads, so here a short summary of current policy, reasons behind it and future re versifications.
1) Loading versification schemes takes time on low resource environments, making programme startup slow. We therefore have a policy of being very very slow in accepting the need for any new versifications. 2) New ones need to fulfill a definite need beyond say ~ 100 verses ( a number was set once, and I think it was 100) verses being out of sync in a variety of places. 100 verses in a single or two places of course (like Malachi with its 3 or 4 chapters would be more readily be accepted as a problem. 3) Also, the more new or existing modules would be served by a new versification the better. We do not aim for perfection with the existing versifications but for approximation and best service for the largest number of essentially similar texts. 4) Exceptions are important historical/ original source texts. Here perfect cover for a single module is needed and versifications have been added for single modules. 5) It is essentially impossible to withdraw existing versifications as people have all kinds of devices and access our texts from all kinds of new and old versions of our programmes - once added, we aim for never having to withdraw a versification. Up until a couple of years ago and everything prior to the new French versifications has been processed and approved by Chris Little who had an exceptional eye for detail and at the same time an exceptional ability to keep a high level overview. I have taken on the mantle of Chris in several areas - fixes around the filters, module making tools and in particular module uploads etc, but I am neither detail obsessed enough nor interested enough in matters of versifications to continue doing what he did. No one else has so far come forward with an expressed desire to hold that mantle. When Troy discussed the recent new catholic versifications I advised him not to accept these into the current release unless someone else considers them as a) needed and b) correctly done. When Domcox put his 3 French versifications in there had been a long accepted need for just these which preceeded Chris' leaving, so it was a lot easier to simply agree to put them in. But this is now missing. from now on for all new currently discussed versifications and potential other ones. So, we need a new approval person or process to move forward here. Without it, there is no decent way forward to accept new versifications. An entirely separate matter is mapping of references to versifications. We have limited mapping data in the engine. Not all existing versifications are covered and not all kind of references will ever likely be satisfactorily mapped. Where the data is there, the process is transparent That is if you open a reference to the plague of the frogs by a French Bible in, say, a Russian Synodal translation, then the exact same story should come up, even if it is out by a chapter and 3 verses or whatever in terms of absolute references. Where this will not ever work in the deuterocanonical material - as said above - it is highly unlikely that this will ever be satisfactorily mapped. But normal canonical material should be always mappable unless deliberately left out (e.g. some verses in the NT not in the newer Greek editions). As the mapping data is likely to become more complete as time goes on and will always get into engine releases as fast as possible there is emphatically no reason to create workarounds WITHIN modules to fix missing mapping data. Rather, if you perceive a problem submit your data as mapping data and we can all benefit in many more modules than just your own. Hope this clarifies some things. Peter _______________________________________________ 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
