[sword-devel] USFM -> OSIS -> Sword

[Peter von Kaehne]

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 00:22 -0800, David Haslam wrote:
> Michael asks,
> "Is there any way we can tag a module as being of a version that requires
> support for alternate versification and/or support for RtoL scripts? 
> Then only front ends with that capability could display it, and we wouldn't
> have to withhold the module from the front ends that don't."
> 
> We can already specify Versification and Lang in the module conf file.

Direction is also specified in the configuration file.

> It's up to a front-end designer to choose whether to ignore the former if
> that particular front-end does not yet fully support av11n.

Also av11n modules are stored in a repository which is not automatically
included in frontends not supporting av11n.

> We don't know of an application that refuses to [try to] install a module on
> this grounds.

Well, some crash on running av11n modules - JSWORD

At the bottomline - and I do not care how often I need to repeat this,
no text (including titles, introductions, punctuation) gets lost
purposefully during module creation.

Our texts have been shown again and again to be of the highest quality
across the internet. If you look whose module stores get ripped off by
everyone, including some commercial outfits, it is again and again
CrossWire. We purposefully avoid dodgy sources, work hard to eliminate
bugs exposed and create modules which are closer to the original
publisher's intent than any of the free (i.e. gratis) I know of and many
of the pay-for software bundles out there.

CrossWire had titles, introductions, paragraphing, sections,
indentations, high class rendering for odd fonts etc etc long before
anyone else on the free side. Many still don't.

CrossWire has worked hard to get av11n going - many consider this
unnecessary luxury.

I think Michael, as important as Copyright is to you, it is to us. And
as important as rendering God's word faithfully is to you, it is to us.

FWIW - and this now comes directly as a shot back to you: If you get so
worked up about potential bugs in our processes, why on earth do you
even consider publishing partial translations? Does not God's command in
Revelation apply to that just as much? Should not partial translations
be banned until they are completed? Should translations not be revised
over and again, until the last drop of doubt re faithful translation is
ultimately slain?

Of course not. 

We accept that translation is a process, both in size and in depth. All
translations I know have been published initially in parts (e.g. NT
first or even Gospels only first) and all are subject to a constant
revision process.

If you now please would give us the trust and the grace to accept that
we are just as serious about God's word as you or any of the publishers
you work with, that we have worked very hard to be as faithful as we can
be and that we all consider ourselves honourbound to fix things as we go
along and uncover our shortcomings/mistakes.

If you do not want to offer such trust, then I think we need to part
ways.

Peter