[sword-devel] search idea

[sword-devel@crosswire.org]

Paul Gear wrote:

> darwin@ichristian.com wrote:

> > Paul Gear wrote:
<SNIPPPED Content for which I will bow to greater knowledge>
 
> > It is illogical to design a language where the process which is done once
> > is made easy at the expense of the process that is performed millions of
> > times.
> 
> In principle i agree with you, but this case is not an example of that.  The overhead is minimal, and can
> be worked around completely if necessary.  Here's how: If you are worried about "<book title>" being longer
> than "<bt>", why aren't you worried about "<bt>" being longer than, say, 0x12?  If you're that worried
> about it, you can write a binary representation of the markup (i.e. "compile" the document to binary form),
> compress it, and write it to disk.  And if we were writing for embedded systems, we might worry about that,
> but it's not really that important in the scheme of things.

I was actually considering suggesting binary tags, but dismissed it since
it would require a special editor for even making minor changes.

I come from the mindset of a programmer who started on a Commodore Vic-20
where every bit is important, but would be too small for even the simplest
Bible software.

However the mindset has served me well.  I have developed programs and file
structures that have amazed others due to my background.

I don't spend full price on something if I can get it on sale, nor will I
give up bits and byres without a serious fight.

Another issue that just came to mind is that assuming that <book title> is
better to read/write than <bt> assumes knowledge of English.  I have startd
to become sensitive to the network comments that an "English only"
philosophy is arrogant.  Perhaps we would be better served using short
acronyms where some language neutrality is acheived.

I love discussing ideas with others, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and
putting up with mine.

--
   Darwin Gregory

   Creation is more scientifically valid than evolution!