[bt-devel] Re: on the way to BT 1.6

[Jim]

Thanks David,  This helps me to understand.



David Blue (Mailing List Addy) wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 21:44, jdc wrote:
>   
>> I guess I don't understand.  Could you give me an example.
>>     
>
> Sure. I'll give an example for both things.
>
> Removal: If we flat out remove the menu entry dynamically based on the 
> module's support of strongs, this will confuse users because they won't think 
> to check the module always to see if it's supported, this can generate 
> support requests where we have to determine if it's our bug causing it to not 
> be there or the module's lack of support.
>
> Module Support vs Individual Words: Ok, say you have a commentary that has 
> words tagged for strongs support, which shows in the info window. If you go 
> based on words in addition to, or instead of module support you can also do a 
> strongs search from the context menu of that commentary. If you only do 
> module support, commentaries cannot say they support strongs numbers 
> (according to the underlying principles set out by the current sword api 
> we're using) so you'd have to manually search it via the dialog. Also, just 
> using the module support doesn't solve the case of trying to search on empty 
> space in the module (lines and spaces between words, paragraph ends, margins, 
> etc) or other text elements that aren't words with strongs numbers attached 
> (verse numbers, foot note markers, etc).
>
> _______________________________________________
> bt-devel mailing list
> bt-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
>
>