[sword-devel] Module Display Names
jonmmorgan at gmail.com
Wed Jan 19 20:04:23 MST 2011
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Greg Hellings <greg.hellings at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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>
> > wrote:
> >> 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
> > it), but trying using the Abbreviation first then the Name as a
> > 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
> > 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?
Whether or not you have a German localised name (which was I think discussed
and could be supported with Abbreviation_de, but opens another can of
worms), even "Luther 1545" is a marked improvement over "GerLut1545".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel