I think, if you aim at the Windows crowd excusing and replacing is the way. Else, Linux, people are probably happy to get thrown e.g. into Gedit<br><br>Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [xiphos-devel] that blasted editor<br>From: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@kleinpaste.org><br>To: Xiphos developers <xiphos-devel@crosswire.org><br>CC: <br><br><br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="FreeSerif">Just to be
clear... You folks are in fact suggesting excising the current
integrated editor, to replace it with another integrated editor,
just one that speaks a different editing scheme. You're walking
the center line, between fixing the current nightmare-to-upgrade
editor vs. removing it in favor of reduction to linkage to an
entirely external editor.<br>
<br>
That's fine. I mean, I suppose I can roll either way, I guess. I
just thought folks would be happier with reducing Xiphos'
involvement with editing from "we do everything in editing" to
mere external linkage at start ("here's the initial [usually
empty] doc") and end ("let me now inhale the result of your
editing").<br>
<br>
For the record, I would have never suggested literally using
$EDITOR. Joe Random doesn't want to do styled editing in an
ordinary text editor, as is usually indicated by $EDITOR.<br>
</font><br>
On 4/18/20 5:53 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHxvOVKJc-=nvZCfAWQ7-O8Uf8GNUM0D45PWMGAhk+u3Mp1BEQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div>* Links are pretty trivial</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif"><br>
Bear in mind that links in such docs are not just external
http-style links to external sites. The important aspect is
cross-referential links, that is, internal links to other Sword
modules. See <a href="http://karl.kleinpaste.org/xiphos/">http://karl.kleinpaste.org/xiphos/</a>
and look at link-genbook*, especially -3. (Once upon a time, those
images were a brief tutorial on how to do a link in Xiphos.) These
create links like these:<br>
<br>
1. Direct linkage to any other Sword module:<br>
</font><tt><A
HREF="sword://Josephus/%2FThe+Antiquities+of+the+Jews%2FBook+18%2FChapter+3%2FSection+3">jos.18.3.3</A></tt><font
face="FreeSerif"><br>
2. Scripture xref through the verse list:<br>
</font><tt><A
HREF="passagestudy.jsp?action=showRef&amp;type=scripRef&amp;module=&amp;value=Genesis+2%3A24">Genesis
2:24</A></tt><font face="FreeSerif"><br>
<br>
This takes advantage of the HTML nature in ThML's essence as
HTML-plus-goodies. ("Goodies" are <note>, <sync>, and
<scripRef>.) The latter example exploits internal habit of
how the engine's filters generate xref from scripRef; the former
is simply an odd protocol, "sword://". No, these are not concepts
that are portable to other Sword apps. Er, well, sword:// is
known in some corners other than Xiphos, and xiphos-nav operates
on its basis.<br>
<br>
I wish I could have done xrefs as actual ThML <scripRef>,
avoiding the post-filter appearance of such links, but that wasn't
possible.<br>
<br>
And no, these features aren't reflective of my personal bias re:
ThML. It's just that an editor's HTML result is best interpreted
by Sword as ThML, exactly because of HTML-plus-goodies. HTML
content makes no sense as any other Sword-grasped content type. If
we could add an MD filter set to Sword directly, we could walk
away from round trip MD to HTML and HTML to MD. But that's not
going to happen.</font><br>
</body>
</html>
</blockquote></div>