<div>I think that the plan is a good one. We are dealing with a large amount of redundant code in the case of parallel displays. However, what if two different front-ends want to display the parallel text in different ways? BibleCS does an internlinear display, but presents that verse-by-verse. What if one person wants to do them in parallel columns (doesn't MacSword do that?) and another wants to do interlinear, but by lines rather than verse? I think that would be the strongest argument against pushing the functionality back into the API.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, it might be possible to push some of the parallel function back into the API while still allowing that freedom for the front-ends to maintain freedom of how they display the parallel passages. But all the ways of doing that that I can think of amount to only a minimal saving of code for the front-ends.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My $.02.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--Greg</div>