[sword-devel] Module Display Names
greg.hellings at gmail.com
Wed Jan 19 19:54:13 MST 2011
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Ben Morgan <benpmorgan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com>
>> 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?
> It's probably best not to make it required (most existing modules won't have
> it), but trying using the Abbreviation first then the Name as a replacement
> if necessary was the use case it was specifically put in for.
> When this last came up was when it was decided to put the Abbreviation field
> in the .conf files, but I don't know that
> a) it was done in any of the conf files
> b) any frontend authors added support for it
> If a) happens, b) is likely to follow.
If it musters approval with the BT crowd, I'm going to start with (b)
and then see if (a) ever comes along. Sounds like Peter would
appreciate if Xiphos were to also have this - maybe he's willing to
provide appropriate German language abbreviations to the conf files to
include the Abbreviation for those modules that he said annoy him?
It seems unlikely that the modules I'm working on will be released
(Copyright issues), so that's why I plan to do the work in BibleTime
to support this suggestion, if the rest of the team likes it. I know
we have a number of foreign language developers, so they might be
bothered by the same thing that annoys Peter as well and might
contribute Abbreviations as well, if BibleTime were to support it
already and they used modules which annoyed them.
More information about the sword-devel