[sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

[Greg Hellings]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org> wrote:
>
>
> Greg Hellings wrote:
>>
>> If not 1.6 or 2.0... then could you possibly explain to me the rhyme
>> or reason given to the versioning system?
>
> The minor version indicates whether we're in a development (odd number) or
> stable (even number) branch. Under that system, 1.6 and 2.0 wouldn't be
> right for this change. We could think about bumping to 1.7 though. I'll
> confess, I consider the v11n change to be evolutionary, not revolutionary,
> so I wouldn't expect a greater than usual version bump--but version
> numbering really isn't the sort of thing I think or care about.

Seriously?  So the latest "stable" release of SWORD was 1.4.6, dated
November of 1999?  I find that hard to believe.  And while v11n might
be evolutionary from a technological standpoint, from a philosophical
standing it's quite a large evolutionary step, at the very least,
finally giving up one group's pet versioning scheme and allowing
multiple versions to be implemented.  So if this is still considered
in-development then leaving at 1.5 might be consistent with the past,
but it sure doesn't seem that way with how the archives appear.  The
project moved from 1.1.2 to 1.4.9 in about 14 months and has been
firmly entrenched in 1.5 for the past 9.5 years.

>
> I should mention that we're not considering a free-for-all here, where
> module developers get to implement their own v11n systems. We're also not
> talking about GenBook Bibles.

Is this a stepping stone to that or has the idea of fully free-form
Bibles been abandoned?

>
> Troy wants us to identify and define a small set of v11n systems that give
> us the greatest bang for the buck, and module developers will have to select
> from one of those predefined systems (at least in 1.5.12). So, in addition
> to KJV, I'd like us to define a few important original language systems
> (probably Leningrad Codex, Vulgate, and LXXM) and a few broadly used
> translation v11n systems like NRSV/NRSVA (the OSIS standard) and maybe the
> French standard. We can support more in later releases.

I would think that identifying all of the native schemes current in
our selection of Bibles would be the best place to start.  I'm no
expert on such things, but does the Byzantine text follow any of the
above?  Do we have any Orthodox texts in our repository?  I think I
remember someone mentioning that the Orthodox canon is different.  I
don't remember seeing any other mainstream versions in there.  That
would allow all of our current content to be offered in its "proper"
versing and would probably provide a full cover of all the texts we
are likely to support into the forseeable future.  And if new modules
come with other schemes, it sounds like the v11n should allow support
for those to be added at that time without massive amounts of work?

--Greg

>
> --Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>