<div dir="ltr">Hi DM<div><br></div><div>Assuming you're talking about the DivisionName class in the versification package, from a quick glance, you're right, it's not v11n-safe. The only mention of Versifications is in the comments, which states that it's unsafe... I guess for some sections it wouldn't be too difficult to draw up. But others would be harder. I think this code should live in the Versification object. The Versification should define its sections, and they should map to an enum. Most of the logic around contains, etc. is v11n-specific.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chris</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 May 2014 11:28, Chris Burrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chris@burrell.me.uk" target="_blank">chris@burrell.me.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">It's perhaps a faulty assumption, but it's going to be a very common assumption / pitfall for the user. The Hebrew OT isn't ordered according to the Leningrad codex as far as I know. What are we gaining by having a different order anyway?<div>
<br></div><div>The problem for STEP is that we allow people to search across multiple versions, which suddenly means that a range becomes quite annoying because it either has to mean different things depending on a 'primary' version, or it has no meaning at all...</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>Chris</div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 May 2014 19:38, DM Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmsmith@crosswire.org" target="_blank">dmsmith@crosswire.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
On May 29, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Chris Burrell <<a href="mailto:chris@burrell.me.uk" target="_blank">chris@burrell.me.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
> Is it intentional that<br>
><br>
> a- of the two orders of the OT in the Leningrad codex, we opted for the one that places Nehemiah as the last book<br>
<br>
</div>We followed SWORD on the order. I presume that it was intentional.<br>
<div><br>
><br>
> b- when you now do searches across what most people consider to be the Old Testament (Gen-Mal), if you're searching the OSHB you don't end up the entire canon.<br>
<br>
</div>This is expected. It is a faulty assumption of the user. The same is true of any other OT having a different book order.<br>
<br>
There's a class in the versification package that should be able to produce a proper range for the selection of the Old Testament. IIRC, it does not work as it presumes a KJV ordering. The idea behind the class is to allow the application to have pre-defined ranges. E.g. OT, NT, Whole Bible, Prophets, Wisdom, Pauline Letters, Gospels, .....<br>
<br>
The other question is what constitutes the "canon." Some orderings have DC material mixed in. The range Gen-Mal is no longer meaningful if one wants to exclude the DC.<br>
<br>
I think that when one asks the application for the OT that they don't also get DC. If they want DC they should ask for it explicitly.<br>
<br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> jsword-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:jsword-devel@crosswire.org" target="_blank">jsword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/jsword-devel</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>