[sword-devel] Wiki front end comparison
chrislit at crosswire.org
Mon Mar 2 15:23:15 MST 2009
Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> The OS support I would simply do as previous - one row only, but maybe
> with icons to make faster to read. Win95+ or WinXP+ is adequate instead
> of a whole list of variants (unless newer Wins do not work).
This may seem a minor matter, but I'm not sure whether the current
division of 95/98/NT/Me vs. 2000/XP/Vista/7 is correct. If it really is
the case that front ends don't work on specifically the former set and
do work on the latter, then that's fine, but in my experience the split
is slightly different and is less a dichotomy than a gradient.
The case for BibleCS is that you lose Unicode features in the OS as you
travel back in time. So from 95 to 98/Me you gain some features, but
none of these are really Unicode supporting OSes. NT4 through 7, being
all of them based on the original NT 3.1 codebase that supported Unicode
from the ground up, all handle Unicode text fairly well and don't
require any of the right-to-left hackery included to do proper Hebrew &
Arabic display on 9x.
That's all just to say that I'm not sure whether we can collapse these
different versions into 2 clear categories--and if so, whether NT4 is in
the right category.
More information about the sword-devel