[sword-devel] proposed patch: adding n=X marker content to footnotes and xrefs
karl at kleinpaste.org
Sun Feb 12 14:01:14 MST 2012
"Troy A. Griffitts" <scribe at crosswire.org> writes:
> Again, I am not arguing against displaying publisher provided labels.
> I am arguing against forcing all frontends to display publisher
> provided labels.
If I were an author/publisher, I would walk away from Sword on that
basis alone. I'm not kidding one iota.
I (metaphorical "I," i.e. the publisher) produce content that I expect
you (editorial "you," i.e. Sword apps) to render properly. And you (the
app author) are telling me that you'll decide somewhat randomly whether
to include (some part of) _my_ content in _your_ display. Um, what?
Exactly who do you think you are, presuming to make such decisions about
_my_ content? I (myself) already worry that we don't provide ways to
get e.g. section headings to display exactly as publishers want them.
Notice well that Greg has made it clear that Wycliffe _very nearly did_
walk away from Sword on such a basis alone; that they operate using only
one Sword app they consider acceptable; and it's well worth mention that
Wycliffe is the single biggest publisher that does anything with Sword.
There are currently 46 Bibles whose About says, "Text provided to the
CrossWire Bible Society by Wycliffe Bible Translators." No other
publisher comes close.
(Xiphos uses bold [only] for section headings. bible.org, for one,
publishes its content mostly using italic headings, with extensive
exceptions in e.g. Song due to attempting to identify text speakers.
Browser screenshot of bible.org's content:
This echoes their print publication. I also worry about *n/*x for the
same reason, and I don't deny that Xiphos' display of "*n23" isn't
right, either, but as I've said before, my implementation of the
post-process step was just to tack the n=X content onto the *n/*x that
has been habit in the filters for a decade or more, long pre-dating
myself, which at least got n=X out where it belongs, according to
publishers' evident intent.)
You don't think publishers care whether what you put on the screen bears
an excruciatingly close resemblance to what they encoded in the content
with which you have been entrusted?
> As a scholar I would reference: Document, Work, "Footnote concerning
> <catch word>"
Personally, I strongly dislike the hokeyness of that. It's dreadful.
Footnote markers arose as a habit in publishing and especially
typography _because_ of the hokeyness of that sort of ham-handed
reference. Try publishing a CS paper in any journal anywhere using
that. Your paper will be rejected out of hand, for not adhering to The
Chicago Manual of Style.
More information about the sword-devel