Hi Michael,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Kahunapule Michael Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kahunapule@mpj.cx">kahunapule@mpj.cx</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 03/05/2012 08:07 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On 05/03/12 17:33, Greg Hellings wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Kahunapule Michael Johnson
<a href="mailto:kahunapule@mpj.cx" target="_blank"><kahunapule@mpj.cx></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On 03/05/2012 03:20 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>You seem quite taken with USFM, but remember that CrossWire and SWORD
do not support USFM as an import or display format. Therefore
information beyond just how to convert USFM into OSIS or ThML or GBF
which are supported is not really of importance.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>USFM is the format that literally hundreds of minority-language Bible translations exists in. Are you saying that the Sword Project is not interested in importing those?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre>I am not entirely clear what you are aiming at and I must say I do get
somewhat irritated with your tone. I do have a feeling over the last few
days that you are itching to get a fight. Why is that? Is this simply a
misunderstanding?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is most likely a misunderstanding. Perhaps I have also been
misunderstanding some of the messages that seem to be opposed to
USFM. I'm not trying to suggest that USFM be made an additional
internal format for Sword for Bible search and display, like GBF and
OSIS.<br>
<br>
Please let me be clear about what my goals, agenda, and purpose
really are.<br>
<br>
I have many USFM Bible texts in many languages. I will soon have
access to many more. I would like to convert them to various formats
for distribution and use, publishing them in ways that maximize
their usefulness and accessibility and study by many people in their
own languages. My primary focus is with minority languages, although
I have a few translations in languages that have many more speakers
that I will be converting. Sword is one of many possible outputs for
these Scriptures.<br>
<br>
Because of the large number of translations involved, and frequent
updates in the case of translations in progress, I'm not interested
in manual processes. I am only interested in automated processes
that are reasonably efficient and very reliable.<br>
<br>
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter to me what formats you
store or display Bibles in. It can be the current Sword format set
defined by your API. It can be COBOL code and structured Latin if
you can make it work. What I do care about is that when I convert a
Bible (or portion) translation into one of your import formats, and
you import it and display it, that:<br>
<ol>
<li>You accurately preserve all of the original text and
punctuation (including quotation punctuation) exactly as it was
in the original USFM. This involves the complete process from
module creation to display in all front ends. This is an
absolute requirement with respect to the canonical text. If this
condition isn't met, then I don't have permission to convert
these Scriptures to Sword format, nor do you have such
permission.<br></li></ol></div></blockquote><div><br>I'm afraid I do not understand how either you or CrossWire can ensure that *all* front ends display all text correctly. I have no idea from your descriptions whether BPBible or any other frontends would meet the requirements currently. However, even if they did it is conceivable that a new front end is created which does not meet the requirements. Does this mean that CrossWire immediately loses permission to distribute the text for use in any of the front ends? (including all the front ends that are compliant, of course).<br>
<br>Jon<br></div></div>