<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/15/2015 08:29 AM, Peter von
Kaehne wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1436963368.2054.31.camel@gmx.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Wrt the not display of book Doofus 1.1 or even the existing Malachi
3.22 - if I remember correctly the GB av11n implementation was added to
Xiphos at the same time when Xiphos added code to _not_crash_ on av11n
modules.</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif">Xiphos never had code specifically regarding
GB Bibles at all; the whole idea was that it should be invisible.
When the underlying API changed for av11n, work was done to update
Xiphos' use of it appropriately, which still (at that time)
restricted it to KJV v11n because I wasn't prepared to do the
required additional VerseKey work, which was a bit far-reaching.
That is, nothing was done at that time to add v11n sensitivity to
key creation, hence all keys defaulted to KJV. But it never knew
anything specific about GB v11n. In principle, the apps shouldn't
be able to tell.</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1436963368.2054.31.camel@gmx.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As far as CrossWire is concerned I am currently the person in charge of
allowing any modules on. It would be easy to implement restrictions as
to when and how we were willing to accommodate GBav11n. IBT is
similarly tightly controlled. Xiphos - Karl can comment upon that.</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif">/me is still confused.<br>
<br>
There's nothing in Xiphos that restricts (or cares about, in fact)
where v11n details come from. Xiphos just expects to be able to
ask the API "how many books are available?" and "what are their
names?" Whether that's from original KJV layout, or updated
av11n, or GB Bible internal generality, Xiphos has never cared, as
long as the API gives results.</font><br>
</body>
</html>