[sword-devel] GBF2

Trevor Jenkins sword-devel@crosswire.org
Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:32:48 +0000

On Monday, 27 December, 1999 15:14:24, Michael Paul Johnson <mpj@ebible.org>

> I am contemplating revising the GBF specification to (1) more accurately
reflect its actual usage, (2) clarify the handling of multiple alphabets,
and (3) ensure it has a good 1:1 correspondence with the capabilities of SIL
Standard Format (a format that I still need more information on). I will
also add a tag for including image files. I think I'll also take out the
internal digital signature hooks that were there, preferring instead to use
PGP signatures for authentication.
> Any suggestions or comments before I do this?

I took a look at the specification of GBF and my first reaction was it isn't
SGML or XML. At first glance it looks like it but there is no way to specify
the GBF end tags in SGML---trust me I worked on the SGML standard. It's like
C resembling Pascal---because they both use ;

With the way that the market is going XML is flavour of the year. For those
who want to learn about XML I recommend "Professional XML Applications"
published by WROX Press. But I have to admit a financial involvement in that
book as I'm one of the co-authors.

It's a while since I looked at SIL's resources but I would expect their
Standard Format to be an application of either SGML or XML. So
interoperating between the GBF and SIL could require a major re-working of
GBF. However, as I said in an earlier posting the only branch of theology
I'm qualified in is SGML. Interested parties should check out a couple of
the ISO Technical Reports on SGML where you will see my name. :-)

So my first suggeston is bite the bullet now and make GBF an SGML
application. There are technical reasons why it ought not to be an XML
application, which have to do with chapter/verse not matching
paragraph/sentence. But as the SGML world is likely to transition to XML
I'll comprise and say that XML would be an acceptable alternative.

Well yo did ask. ;-)

Regards, Trevor

British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living
language. So recognise it now.


<>< Re: deemed!