[sword-devel] Av11n and coverage

[Jonathan Morgan]

Hi Troy,

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Troy A. Griffitts <scribe at crosswire.org>wrote:

> Hey guys.  I'm remember this thread from a while back am to lazy to go
> back and look.
>
> Please remind me why we want a .conf entry and not a call like:
>
> SWMgr library;
> SWModule *kjv = kjv = library.getModule("KJV");
> VerseKey testKey = "jn.3.16";
>
> // ------------------------------**--
> ListKey range = kjv.getModuleScope();
> // ------------------------------**--
>
> range = testKey;
>
> if (range.Error()) cerr << testKey << " is not within the range: " <<
> range.getRangeText() << endl;
>
>
> The only thing missing is the SWModule::getModuleScope() method which
> could easily be written to scan the module and produce an appropriate
> ListKey.
>
>
> The .conf file is an opportunity for inconsistency.  It can be a useful
> checksum or a pain in the butt maintenance nightmare and I'm thinking the
> latter.


As I would see it, a principle difference would be author intention.  If we
have a conf file, then we know that (at some point) the author intended to
limit the range in this way.  However, if we have a module we do not know
that the author deliberately intended particular parts to be excluded, or
whether they left them out by accident.  This is particularly problematic
if it is just individual verses left out.  Does that mean in any navigation
we have we should explicitly not display those verses?  For example,
consider Mark 9:46 in the ESV.  It is not present in the text (though the
gap is there because it was present in the KJV, and the same versification
is being used), but arguably you don't want the application to tell you
"this verse isn't present in the ESV" or to not allow you to select Mark
9:46 or link to it or anything like that.

Thoughts?

Jon


> On 02/10/2012 04:35 PM, David Haslam wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget that some modules are for a work in progress by the
>> translators.
>>
>> e.g. A New Testament only module may have plenty of cross-references to OT
>> passages, in anticipation that the translation would one day eventually be
>> completed.
>>
>> And - yes - as DM noted, xrefs for modules that are scope-restricted
>> should
>> be linkable for parallel modules that contain the missing books, etc.
>>
>> David
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://sword-dev.350566.n4.**
>> nabble.com/Av11n-and-coverage-**tp4265350p4376618.html<http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Av11n-and-coverage-tp4265350p4376618.html>
>> Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/**mailman/listinfo/sword-devel<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<http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel>
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20120213/1ff29b94/attachment-0001.html>