[sword-devel] Why I think there should be a Sword 1.5.4

Chris Little sword-devel@crosswire.org
Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:46:19 -0800

> > 2) general book support
> Should probably wait to 1.5.5 or later, too big a change. 
> Requires a lot of work in the frontends.

Support in the API doesn't necessitate support in the frontends.  I know
BibleCS is going to require a serious rewrite, probably using the
prototype as a model.  Sword supported ThML for about a year before any
of the frontends did or any modules were released.

> > 4) apocrypha support
> Probably it would be better not to go 2 steps, but handle this with
the new 
> versification scheme handling, which would be much more flexible? It
> require changes in the frontends anyway...
> So probably wait until 1.5.6 and be combined with versification.

I don't believe an expanded canon is really related to versification.
OSIS will probably handle versifications as variations from a canonical
versification.  We should probably do something similar, which requires
that we have a canonical versification as a basis.  I'm only suggesting
that we handle this before 1.6, not the whole multiple versification
issue.  (If anyone wants to suggest that we do handle multiple
versifications before 1.6, feel free to make your case.  I'm not against
it, I'm just trying to limit our task list.)

> > 6) bookmark interface
> This is not as simple as you might think. To make them shareable you
> think about i18n() here too. You need to think about the versification
> And finally it might be good to have the data in XML to make it useful
> other ppl too.  So imo this could wait a bit. Probably until 1.7.x

I don't see an i18n issue here.  Bookmarks are abstract references like
"Gen 1:1".  If you choose to render that as "1. Mose 1,1", that doesn't
mean you should store the reference in a localized format in the
bookmark file.