chrislit at crosswire.org
Thu Jun 9 16:02:17 MST 2005
DM Smith wrote:
> When I compared nave.dat to the zip from biblecom.net, I found only a
> few differences. The Sword Module does not maintain the book order of
> the words, but rather alphabetizes them with what appears to be an ascii
> collation. And the cross references using the T0000456 notation are
> removed. Also, a special marker that preceded the T* reference and also
> a small handful of (n/a) (these were left in the text) were changed to
> something more printable, a chevron.
I think I had to alphabetize the module by hand because the importer I
wrote couldn't deal with indexing items out of order. The entries in a
lexicon, in any case, cannot be out of order (this is a Sword limitation).
> Also, in the original, there were two SIN entries, which are now SIN (1)
> and SIN (2) The first one is the dastardly deed and the second is the
> desert between Elim and Sinai. (I am wondering whether this is correct.
> Should a dictionary require uniqueness of entry names? Can we manage
> this with two different osisIDs, say SINdeed SINloc?)
Sword also requires that every module key be unique. Since we use the
key for display, we couldn't use distinct osisIDs to solve this. You'd
just have two entries titled SINdeed & SINloc.
> My thought was that I would prepare a complete OSIS document and then
> build the module from that. In doing so, I think that it would be good
> to preserve the original book order of the terms. Will this cause a
Yeah, I would definitely try to keep the order from the print version in
the OSIS document, but Sword will re-order it when it is imported.
More information about the sword-devel