[sword-devel] Important things!

[Joachim Ansorg]

Hi Troy!

> Hurray, we need more people to help get permission.

Agreed :)

> >         -Chris and MPJ are doing a great job with modules! There are lots
> > of free non-english texts out there which can be included in Sword. On
> > this list are so many people which can't program, so I wonder if they
> > subscibed to discuss religious topics. But this list is called
> > "sword-devel", it's the DEVELOPMENT list of Sword! Please don't be so
> > lazy, do something for Sword! We do have now the new mod2vpl and vpl2mod
> > utilities and I'm sure Chris has some cool perl scripts to create
> > modules. My brother does also have some (he did the GerLut1545, Rieger
> > and MAK modules with his scripts).
>
> Yes, more modules would be wonderful.  Chris posted a few days ago for
> feedback as to what modules people would like to see.  I haven't seen
> one response to that message on the list.  I'll put in my 2c:  I love to
> see the 'COMPLETE' MHC added!  I tried to get permission from the OLB
> guys for the text, but they all passed the buck and said they didn't
> have the authority to do that.


> I have asked many people who have volunteered to try to put something
> together and show me what they have, but none have done anything.
>
> Jody, our install shield expert has also expressed interest in this and
> has worked on a few alternative pages.
>
> Anyone else interested, please put some prototype ideas together and
> let's all look at them.

Ok, I'll try.

> > The current design is confusing people,
>
> I hope it's not THAT confusing!  We have a fairly large number of
> downloads of software and modules each week (see
> http://www.crosswire.org/stats.html).

> Don't be afraid of the direction we are going with search.  I'll try to
> ease your conscience:
> 	o There are many people who have expression the desire to search in
> MANY different ways.

But we shouldn't confuse them if we offer the different options. GUIs have to 
be simple, powerful and easy to use!

> 	o The framework will not hinder anyone from adding new search
> capabilities.

I know, but imagine: In future we'll have 15 different search types with 5 
different speeds ;)

> mods.conf is still useful for small scale 'appliance' implementations.
> Don't use it or tell your users about it if it is confusing to them.

I wont :)

> > formats (GBF, ThML, RawText, RawFiles, RawCom, RawLD), this is confusing
> > users and developers!
>
> Users should never know we have different module types.

Sure, they shouldn't. But they'll notice the difference.

> Developers should find it useful that we have the ability to support
> many different module types seamlessly.  I'm not sure as to what the
> issue is.

Yes, but sometimes it's hard to manage it. For example:
	Under Linux we have different frontends. Every frontends provides an editor 
part for the personal commentary. But which format should we use? BibleTime 
uses HTML, GnomeSword uses now the same to be compatible with BibleTime, but 
what's with the windows frontend if you use the same modules in Linux and 
Windows?
We definitely need standards (e.g. the standard format you talked about some 
weeks ago).

> > Maybe we should compress the modules and put them all into one directory,
> > but this is just a quick thought.
>
> Compressed drivers are in the source tree.  They were submitted months
> back.  I integrated them into the source, but I think we lost our
> submitter to other venture.  Anyone interested in picking this back up?

What's missing?

> >         -The windows frontend has too few features
>
> Joachim.  I would venture to say that the windows frontend still has
> many features that bibletime does not have.  You need to spend some time
> using an installed version of it before making these statements.

Ok, which features does BibleTime not have? I'm talking about 1.0CVS :)
The only thing I can think of is this nice "Range parsing" dialog of the 
search dialog.
I got the Windows version now running in Wine, so I can comment better.

> > I have a Linux only box, I saw the program the first time while I met
> > Martin. It has some nice features I like but in comparision with other
> > programs it's not very good.
>
> Maybe you could comment on what you mean.

I think that every frontend of Sword (Including BibleTime) is bad in 
comparision with programs like BibleWorkshop or BibleWorks.
I hope we can have such a fast search after Nathan sent you the required 
functions.

> Concerning printing: I've not tried to tackle printing, as I could not
> think of an interface that I would use as a user of the software.  When
> I want to print, it's usually much easier for me to grab what I want and
> paste it into where I want it.  We support decorated copy and paste, so
> you get all markup with what you select.  I suppose that sometimes it
> might be useful to build a verselist for printing with some mechanism
> that we can come up with, but would it REALLY be more usable than just
> grabbing what you want and building it in a real word processor, along
> with your notes?  Maybe, but I've yet to see an interface that I
> personally would use.

In BibleTime we have something like a verse list. Each item may have a style 
which contains informationhow the item should be formatted.

> > We (the team of BibleTime) want port BibleTime after we released version
> > 1.0. Is it possible that we are the standard Sword frontend on Windows? I
> > don't want to be arrogant, but we have more features (e.g. printing,
> > bookmarks, better search dialog) and I think it's more useable.
>
> Really?  I think the Windows GUI bookmarks and search window are much
> more featureful, with the exception of multiple module searches.

Really? You support tree structure, we do it, too. We have the same options 
in our searchdialog except this nice range editor part. But we have the 
"graphical search analysis".
We do have Drag&Drop support:
	-You can drag verses from the presenters into the groupmanager to create 
bookmarks
	-You can do the same with the search result items.
	-You can move the items and groups in the tree using Drag&Drop

Sorry, I think I was wrong in most of the points concerning the Windows 
frontend. But often I read and heared that BibleTime has a better and easier 
to use interface than the Windows version.

> > Troy, this was only a question. I know you do the coding of Sword and of
> > the Windows Frontend and you work to earn the money you need for living
> > and nobody else is coding for Sword. Why not concentrate on the Sword
> > library? But we can't port BibleTime if we can't get a Qt professional
> > license ($1500 / year). Is somebody owner of such a license wo want to
> > compile BibleTime for Windows? Or is here  a billionaire who can pay the
> > license?
>
> My apologies, Joachim.  I told you that I would call my contact at Qt.
> I have yet to dig up his business card out of the pile of stuff from the
> show.  I will spend time to look for it.

Thank you, Troy!

> >         -We are missing things like Unicode support or language parsing
> > features (e.g. morphologic analysis), but the implementation of them is
> > really hard, so this is no current topic. Is here some export of the
> > Hebrew or Greek language who's able to do the morphologic analysis?
> > Is here some Unicode expert?
>
> I don't think we have a text that yet contains the morph codes that we
> need.  I would not assume that there could be build an accurate software
> language analysis tool.  I'd much rather trust the expert human eye and
> a text coded with tags reflecting these decisions.

Hmm, Bible Works 4.0 was cool with it morphologic analysis and it's 
interlinear display.
But who could add the tags?

> > Tro, Chris, MPJ, Trevor I really don't want to flame. I like Sword.
> > Without Sword BibleTime and the other frontend would be impossible!
> > Troy, I don't want to nerve you to implement the features, I know you are
> > busy. But why can't the other users do something?
> >
> :)  No problem.  Love to hear good and bad.  It's the only way to know
> what people want.
>

> I like your attitude about the issues.  A few people have become
> frustrated and gone away and implemented their own engine.  I don't
> understand this.  If you are missing a feature that you 'need', my
> thought is, PERFECT!  that's what opensource is for!  add it!  I don't
> understand why you'd go do your own thing, as it does not benefit anyone
> else and make more work for you.
>
> (not 'you', but whoever goes to do his own thing).
>

> I would love new features, but I really don't get many submissions.

This remembers me that I have to buy a good C++ book to learn it better.

--Joachim