[sword-devel] Change to Synodal verse system

[Chris Little]

On 8/1/11 4:41 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> Von: Chris Little<chrislit at crosswire.org>
>
>> At the time 1.6.2 was released, there were still no major Sword
>> apps that had been released with support for av11n to the extent
>> necessary to support Synodal-v11n modules. We had also only
>> released a couple of Synodal-v11n modules and only released them to
>> the experimental repository.
>
> XULsword - while not being a "major" Sword application in the sense
> of Xiphos etc for lack of having a worldwide distribution and a lack
> of much community involvement by XULSowrd's makers - it has a very
> strong following in the CIS area - where the synodal versification is
> in use across a whole bunch of tranlations (all IBT issues and
> preceding our own release of synodal texts)
>
> And XUL sword supported synodal versification from early on - i.e.
> prior to libsword having av11n implemented XULSword was based on a
> forked version implementing kjv and synodal.
>
> I think this fork has been dumped and XULSword is now relying on our
> own ordinary implementation of av11n.
>
> While using the forked version XULSword also had its modules
> encrypted in a unique fashion, but my understanding is that the
> modules currently distributed will be just normal standard modules
> with Synodan v11n.
>
> So, summary - for the target audience of synodal v11n there existed
> for a long time a distribution channel for modules, there are plenty
> out there who use these and we are currently making integration of
> IBT and XULsword into CrossWire proper difficult.

If xulsword supported our Synodal v11n via Sword 1.6.1, I'm not aware of 
that. Its support for a similar v11n prior to the introduction of av11n 
support in Sword is irrelevant to the issue, since it was not 
representative of the standard Russian Synodal Bible.

> I think if we plan to have a formal policy of eternal retention of
> obsolete v11ns, it needs to apply to the synodal too.
>
> This is a bit unfortunate and is in parts caused by the near total
> lack of communication between XULSword makers and us + also between
> IBT and us, but it would be good and right to be welcoming from our
> side. There is more to this than simply "doing your own thing".

We added the SynodalP v11n specifically to support IBT's texts, and 
that's probably as much as we can do to accommodate these texts.

Nothing we can do can fix issues created by Synodal-v11n texts created 
for 1.6.1 by third parties. Nothing we can do can fix incompatibility of 
pre-Sword-1.6 xulsword Synodal-oid texts with Sword 1.6.2+ frontends.

--Chris