[sword-devel] USFM -> OSIS -> Sword
jonmmorgan at gmail.com
Tue Mar 6 03:47:42 MST 2012
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Kahunapule Michael Johnson <
kahunapule at mpj.cx> wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 08:07 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On 05/03/12 17:33, Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Kahunapule Michael Johnson<kahunapule at mpj.cx> <kahunapule at mpj.cx> wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 03:20 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> You seem quite taken with USFM, but remember that CrossWire and SWORD
> do not support USFM as an import or display format. Therefore
> information beyond just how to convert USFM into OSIS or ThML or GBF
> which are supported is not really of importance.
> USFM is the format that literally hundreds of minority-language Bible translations exists in. Are you saying that the Sword Project is not interested in importing those?
> I am not entirely clear what you are aiming at and I must say I do get
> somewhat irritated with your tone. I do have a feeling over the last few
> days that you are itching to get a fight. Why is that? Is this simply a
> It is most likely a misunderstanding. Perhaps I have also been
> misunderstanding some of the messages that seem to be opposed to USFM. I'm
> not trying to suggest that USFM be made an additional internal format for
> Sword for Bible search and display, like GBF and OSIS.
> Please let me be clear about what my goals, agenda, and purpose really are.
> I have many USFM Bible texts in many languages. I will soon have access to
> many more. I would like to convert them to various formats for distribution
> and use, publishing them in ways that maximize their usefulness and
> accessibility and study by many people in their own languages. My primary
> focus is with minority languages, although I have a few translations in
> languages that have many more speakers that I will be converting. Sword is
> one of many possible outputs for these Scriptures.
> Because of the large number of translations involved, and frequent updates
> in the case of translations in progress, I'm not interested in manual
> processes. I am only interested in automated processes that are reasonably
> efficient and very reliable.
> As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter to me what formats you store or
> display Bibles in. It can be the current Sword format set defined by your
> API. It can be COBOL code and structured Latin if you can make it work.
> What I do care about is that when I convert a Bible (or portion)
> translation into one of your import formats, and you import it and display
> it, that:
> 1. You accurately preserve all of the original text and punctuation
> (including quotation punctuation) exactly as it was in the original USFM.
> This involves the complete process from module creation to display in all
> front ends. This is an absolute requirement with respect to the canonical
> text. If this condition isn't met, then I don't have permission to convert
> these Scriptures to Sword format, nor do you have such permission.
I'm afraid I do not understand how either you or CrossWire can ensure that
*all* front ends display all text correctly. I have no idea from your
descriptions whether BPBible or any other frontends would meet the
requirements currently. However, even if they did it is conceivable that a
new front end is created which does not meet the requirements. Does this
mean that CrossWire immediately loses permission to distribute the text for
use in any of the front ends? (including all the front ends that are
compliant, of course).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel