[sword-devel] Module Display Names

Greg Hellings greg.hellings at gmail.com
Wed Jan 19 19:42:51 MST 2011

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
>> I think putting abbreviation first always is nice because it is easier
>> to scan for (i.e. ESV is much more recognizable than English Standard
>> Version).  Putting the Abbreviation on the front makes it possible to
>> scan through a list for it, whereas if the description was first and the
>> abbreviation at the end it would be much more difficult.
> A lot of this comes back to some of the threads in the past on localised
> display of book names etc.
> If I use e.g. Xiphos in German it is a bit irritating that all kind of
> German Bibles are called GerThis or GerThat, particularly if there are
> valid (but possibly conflicting with those in other languages)
> abbreviations.

I think this is important - in fact, more important than the other
considerations and opinions of us here.  Order is a matter of personal
preference (if we really wanted to embrace the style of Linux-like
apps, we would probably supply a dialog to users where they could use
some shortened templating code to create a custom module display
name).  Displaying the correct name and abbreviation that users would
expect to see in their native language is not a matter of opinion...
in my opinion. :)

Since we have an abbreviation field already designated for the conf,
perhaps we should make it required?  Or perhaps applications could
use, first, the Abbreviation field if present and only fall back to
the module name if an Abbreviation is lacking? That way the module
creator of GerThis or GerThat could display THIS instead of GerThis if
they wanted in well-behaved applications?

Otherwise, what is the purpose of the Abbreviation field?

> Therefore I think we should really move away from using the internal
> identifier as a user visible tag.



More information about the sword-devel mailing list