Can you clarify what you mean by “I’m encoding the entire spec for storage in a source form….”?
What has happened so far is that we’ve been responding with the 2006 2.1.1 version of the OSIS Spec. We host the file at https://crosswire.org/osis/OSIS%202.1.1%20User%20Manual%2006March2006.pdf <https://crosswire.org/osis/OSIS%202.1.1%20User%20Manual%2006March2006.pdf>. If I remember correctly, the PDF is generated from a different document to which we don’t have access. If we wish to fix and improve that document, I think we should see if we can formally take responsibility for it by contacting Patrick Duruasau. Short of that we’ve been documenting shortcomings in the wiki. We do require valid OSIS. There have been bugs and shortcomings in the schema. I’m the pumpkin keeper of that and have made a few changes that are agreeable to this mailing list. We’ve attempted to document that in the wiki. One of the considerations is whether the suggested change works with how the SWORD and JSword engines understand the spec. You are right that the wiki is not issue tracker and gets harder to understand as more gets added to it. David and I have tried to have the wiki on OSIS be an addendum to the spec. And guidance on how to build a SWORD module using it. Do you have a suggestion on to get from where we are to where you think we should be? In Him, DM > On May 4, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Michael H <cma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > David, > > That page you refer to is the problem that created this email. > > The page you refer to shouldn't exist like it does.. that information should > be going onto a problem ticket system. (Think the 'issue tracker' on the USFM > 3 list. It's searchable and the status of most items is clear, and anything > already acted on is already on the official documentation pages.) > > That collection of pages in its current form provides little information. > it's not sorted by status of investigation/implementation, nor by the spec's > organization, but rather by the impression of the author as to it's nature. > It seems to be a collection of writings, some of which describe real problems > that have been acted on already, some that describe misspellings (but can > safely be ignored for module creation.), and some that fit into "wishlist" > meaning even if they're in the 'bug' category and actually bugs, they aren't > affecting what happens today. Each writing in the wiki will have to be > processed before I can code. I can't see any clear status marker present so I > can sort the already dones from the wishlist. > > THATS what I'm suggesting/working toward. I'm encoding the entire spec for > storage in a source form, so that implemented bugfixes can be updated into > the spec. We should not have to go through megabytes of text to find 3 > misleading characters in the spec that will break every module someone trying > to follow the spec will run into. I've seen enough in the wiki that I'm > pretty sure there's at least on issue listed there that is likely to be in > that class, but I'm going to have to sort through each and every sentence on > each and every page to find them all. > > > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:25 PM David Haslam <dfh...@protonmail.com > <mailto:dfh...@protonmail.com>> wrote: > Have you looked at our Wiki page? > > OSIS 211 CR > > It was even edited again today! > > The Bible Technologies Group has not met for years & the original website > went AWOL. > > It may well be the case that CrossWire is the only remaining de facto > maintainer of OSIS. > > Best regards, > > David > > Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 19:07, Michael H <cma...@gmail.com > <mailto:cma...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating >> Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works by >> Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.) >> >> But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in not >> very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file, and a >> mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to support >> gaps, to wishlist. >> >> What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even >> Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just >> to turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now >> it seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what >> I'm reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result >> somewhere more official than my google drive. >> >> If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to bugfix >> it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information to be >> tabular?) > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > <mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > <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
