mvnForum Homepage

Posted by karl at Jul 14, 2006 10:45:57 AM
confused   Declining ThML support?
In the "problems creating a module" thread (last post, December 2005), Osk observes that there is no future support planned for ThML.

I'm somewhat concerned by this. I recently began producing some scripts to auto-generate modules for myself, for translations that aren't (can't be, due to copyright) available through Crosswire. My first cut was with GBF, just because it looked idiot simple, but then I looked at all the mods.d/*.conf and found that ThML is far and away the most common format used, so I re-targeted my script to generate that sort of markup.

Since I subsequently saw the comment about ThML non-support, I've been thinking about how to re-target again for OSIS, but frankly motivation becomes seriously lacking (I need to spend time hacking out GnomeSword bugs instead) and some of the needs of OSIS are a real pain in the neck. E.g. I want to auto-detect "footnote" items which are in fact in xref'able format, to enable them that way. This isn't too tough for ThML scripRef, with a nasty bit of regexp effort, but the nested/repeater content of OSIS type=crossReference complicates this considerably.

Is ThML actually in demise? Although it was said that OSIS is where the future is, by now -- already some 7 months after that comment -- I see just 3 English OSIS modules, just 2 of those are Bible texts (KJV & ESV, & the 3rd is a small and relatively inconsequential genbook), and 1 of those 2 is yet in beta (ESV); so it just doesn't look like there's any actual movement toward OSIS.


PS- Per-format, per-language module counts in mods.d:
for i in GBF ThML OSIS ; do echo == $i == ; grep -l SourceType=$i * | xargs grep Lang= | cut -f2 -d: | cut -f2 -d= | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr ; done
Project Admin, Xiphos