[sword-devel] Wiki front end comparison
dmsmith at crosswire.org
Mon Mar 2 15:32:15 MST 2009
Chris Little wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure either. Feel free to change it. The point was that some
applications don't run on earlier OSes. I don't know what the boundary is.
Perhaps NT3 is in the former and NT4 is in the latter.
I think it is still important to call out 2000.
We still get support requests about Windows 98. I haven't seen one for
95 in years.
More information about the sword-devel