[sword-devel] sword-icu

[Chris Little]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, David's Mailing List and Spam Receiver wrote:

> On Friday 25 June 2004 03:22 am, Chris Little wrote:
> > Search the archives for the last time I answered this.  Short recap:
> > we're also maintaining project files for BCB, I don't have time ATM to
> > get the files into shape for submission to ICU, and they probably would
> > not be interested in all of them.
> 
> Actually, my question, which apparently you did not have time to read very 
> carefully mentioned the project files. I understand what the differences are 
> between the official ICU distribution and our sword-icu (or is it icu-sword I 
> can never remember). What I don't understand is why we maintain a separate 
> copy of ICU rather than submitting those files. OK, you don't have time 
> that's fine. I do. Point me at the docs and I'll get them into shape myself. 
> And so they probably won't accept all of them big deal. Is it really a great 
> loss if they won't accept the Tengwar transliterator? I mean really is there 
> a great need for people to read the Bible in elvish letters? Why must we have 
> an all or none attitude?

You can find everything in the sword-icu CVS module.  I forget whether 
there are any modifications to the code itself still remaining, but I sort 
of recall that there are.  Of course, our CVS is now a version behind, so 
it needs to be updated first.

I didn't imply an all or nothing attitude, but if they fail to accept 
"all" then we gain "nothing" because we still have to distribute our own 
additions.  The issue isn't the Tengwar transliterators.  Once Tengwar is 
accepted in Unicode, those would be accepted by ICU (and until then, 
they'd probably be accepted for their extras module).  The greater issues 
are whether they would be interested in a multitude of phonetic 
transliterators and dozens of Greek, Hebrew, & Syriac transliterators that 
are not of especially great interest to users not interested specifically 
in biblical literature.

--Chris