[sword-devel] USFM conformance in usfm2osis.py

[Daniel Owens]

I agree with Peter (there really is no spec), but you have to be 
realistic about what you can do as the developer. I would add everything 
that you can from the UBS reference document and then gradually add 
other common USFM elements as time goes by.

Obviously you would have to decide what USFM practices you are willing 
to support since some practices may conflict with others. But my thought 
is, if it is common practice and does not conflict seriously with the 
reference document or the fundamental way you have constructed the 
script to work, support it. Less common practices and those that pose 
serious conflicts should be cleaned up in the USFM files before being 
put through the script. I know "common practice" is hopelessly vague, 
but you have seen a few texts and can make good judgments about what 
should be in there.

Daniel

On 08/01/2012 12:02 AM, refdoc at gmx.net wrote:
> My immediate thought is, there is no USFM text which conforms to spec. 
> And those that try to still vary in their interpretation and the 
> semantics. So a tool to transform needs to be flexible and editable.
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Chris Little" <chrislit at crosswire.org>
> To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Subject: [sword-devel] USFM conformance in usfm2osis.py
> Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 3:16 am
>
>
> My new usfm2osis.py script is progressing quite nicely. I've got it 
> generating valid OSIS from one Bible that uses a very minimal set of 
> USFM elements. At the moment, I'm working to make it process all tags 
> present within the USFM versions of the WEB and RV, and this has 
> raised an issue.
>
> I've been working primarily with the USFM reference from UBS ICAP, 
> treating it as a sort of specification. My question is: should this 
> new utility accept USFM that does not conform to the reference at UBS 
> ICAP?
>
> Should it accept & interpret USFM tags that are not present in the 
> reference?
>
> One specific example is that the WEB uses \fqa*, which is obviously 
> intended as an end-tag version of \fqa (used to mark alternate 
> translations). But the USFM reference does not identify this as a 
> valid end-tag, by my reading.
>
> So... should we...
>
> a) Make the new utility accept non-conformant USFM (from the 
> perspective of the USFM reference). I'm leery of this, since one of my 
> reasons for writing the new utility was to keep it pristinely 
> spec-conformant and I have a feeling we might start incorporating tags 
> and syntax that are less obviously interpretable than \fqa*.
>
> b) Write a separate utility to convert common and interpretable 
> non-conformant tags/syntax to conformant markup.
>
> c) Add a command-line switch to usfm2osis.py so that it performs a 
> pre-processing step of making non-conformant tags/syntax into 
> conformant markup. (This would be the same as option b, but would 
> place everything in a single utility.)
>
> d) Punt on the issue, and let those performing conversion deal with 
> non-conformant markup on a case by case basis.
>
>
> --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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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