[sword-devel] question on possible update to ChiUns

[DM Smith]

Chris,
We have a couple of active developers at jsword-devel who are native  
Chinese speakers and could possibly help. I'm cross posting this to  
there.
DM

On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Chris Little wrote:

> I suspect we could come up with a way to merge the existing featureful
> ChiUns with a corrected underlying text, but some of the issues raised
> here could be solved by simply going back to the original source. It  
> has
> correctly divided words.
>
> I don't know how to judge any other corrections since no others are
> mentioned, but I have a suspicion that WordProject isn't the primary
> source of their Chinese Bibles. I suspect theirs ultimately go back to
> fhl.net, like ours do.
>
> Redoing the module leads to traditional vs. simplified issues. Not  
> being
> a Chinese reader, I don't know the full set of difficulties, but it is
> my understanding that mapping between the two is non-trivial (it is
> definitely not one-to-one). I only find traditional fhl.net (but not
> knowing Chinese makes it difficult to navigate). I definitely don't  
> want
> to disunify the two modules.
>
> I'll get to work converting from the source so this user can check the
> updated text, but I'd like to finish putting together a new morphology
> module first. fhl.net uses OLB-style TVM codes, which I would like to
> convert over to our new Robinson-style codes.
>
> --Chris
>
>
> Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
>> A couple weeks back, someone asked on sword-support for a Chinese  
>> Pinyin
>> module, providing the public domain source reference, and in an  
>> hour or
>> so I had hacked up a basic version which the requestor has been  
>> using.
>>
>> He has since asked if an update to ChiUns would be possible, because
>> evidently he sees (being a Chinese speaker) that the ChiUns has many
>> errors and the new source reference he gives (from same site as  
>> Pinyin)
>> is much better.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the new, improved text is lacking Strong's and  
>> morphology
>> markup.  So we either have featureful errors (now) or bland  
>> correctness
>> (if I gen up a new module).
>>
>> Honestly, the new module's script would be close to a no-brainer,  
>> given
>> that its markup from the source site will be nearly identical to the
>> Pinyin markup.
>>
>> Would it be sensible to have both?  Or could the older module's
>> Strong's/morph markup be applied to the new content?
>>
>> Opinion?
>>
>> --karl
>>
>>> I understand not wanting to go backward in terms of features.  But  
>>> the
>>> advantage of having a text without errors (or at least markedly less
>>> errors) is of inestimable value.  The updated text also includes the
>>> removal of all the spaces between every Chinese character which is  
>>> not
>>> the way Chinese is meant to be written (see the difference in the  
>>> way
>>> the Chinese NCV text is displayed which is the correct way).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page