[sword-devel] inquring about an official WEB update and also the gbf to osis converter....

[Kahunapule Michael Johnson]

Chris Little wrote:
>
>
> Kahunapule Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Chris Little wrote:
>>> The text derives from the OSIS document on ebible.org (with only the
>>> header and apocrypha removed before running the importer), so it isn't
>>> conformant OSIS 2.1. But there is some chatter about changing the
>>> standard in various ways to accomodate presentational quotation marks
>>> more easily, so I'm hoping Michael Johnson will fix his converter once
>>> that happens. (Actually, if I recall, we identified syntax in 2.1 for
>>> marking presentation quotes and it hasn't been incorporated into the
>>> converter, so maybe he doesn't care.)
>
>> Actually, he does care. He just doesn't code to rumors. I haven't
>> noticed any firm, accessible documentation on OSIS that would lead me to
>> think that changing my converter would be appropriate. I don't really
>> believe OSIS will catch on, much, because it is possible to do much
>> better with a Scripture XML schema, at least from the perspective of
>> most of those who generate Scripture files (like Bible translators and
>> publishers). Anyway, thanks...
>
> In my recollection you had about two thirds of the OSIS technical
> committee, including the schema and manual author, concur on how you
> can encode presentational quotation marks in OSIS with the existing
> schema (that is, using the n attribute on q elements). That doesn't
> qualify under the standard definition of a "rumor".

I guess we failed to communicate clearly. I was waiting for the revised
documentation and schema to show those proposed changes in final form,
readily accessible from the OSIS web site front page. Maybe that was an
unreasonable expectation? To be honest, I have interpreted the lack of
such publication to be rejection. I did not regard private emails even
from a majority of the OSIS committee to be final.

Have you tried to find your way around the OSIS web site recently? I
don't see much of anything there that confirms what you say in email. My
statements and my perception of OSIS are based on what is published
there, and I don't think that is unfair.

I appreciate the partial OSIS technical committee input and
recollections... but I'm more comfortable with an open standard openly
published. Maybe I'm strange that way...

Michael