<b class="gmail_sendername">DM Smith</b> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">[snip] ... when a prefix is absent, there are two
<br>different mechanisms for determining the document to which the osisRef<br>refers. It is possible to map particular elements via the<br>workPrefixDefault header element to a work. Lacking that an osisRef<br>refers to the same work.
</blockquote><div><br>You are right about that... In my own assumption I chose to ignore the workPrefixDefault for simplicity's sake. But for full osis compliance, both methods would have to be accounted for.<br></div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">If I am not mistaken, Sword currently assumes that all osisRefs are to a<br>bible of the user's choice...
</blockquote><div><br>Is there a consesus that this is an acceptable assumption? Or does anyone agree that the original document should determine each osisRef's target?<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
...Personally, I'd rather that we have the header for an OSIS work so that<br>we can use it's metadata rather than creating new mappings in the<br>current conf.</blockquote><div><br>It would definitely be useful to preserve the osis header metadata, but that doesn't solve the problem of mapping osisWork identifiers to sword module names. There could possibly be some way to encode that into a <work> tag ( maybe <format type="x-sword">moduleName</format> ) if such a hack could be agreed upon, but the conf file seemed to me the most appropriate place for that information, since it is useful only in the Sword environment, and would be irrelevant to the OSIS document in other contexts.
<br><br>Dan<br></div></div>