Karl, can I ask you to handle this in Xiphos?<br><br>Peter<br><br>Sent from my mobile. Please forgive shortness, typos and weird autocorrects.<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Module Submission<br>From: Karl Kleinpaste <karl@kleinpaste.org><br>To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel@crosswire.org><br>CC: <br><br><br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/23/2017 04:27 PM, Matt Zabojnik
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEOKyjBT2wyGNQ6YUkk0iEUFLrZv06OCsNr3TwR4QKsesVBQXw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Any feedback on this? I see several of y'all have
downloaded. Is this thing Go for launch?</p>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="FreeSerif">It's fine, but as you said, you just
replaced the images with higher-def versions - the bdt, dat, and
idx content is identical and the .conf diff is only 3 lines,
enough to identify a distinct module. My preference would be to
do just that (replace images) in SmithBibleAtlas, bump its
version stamp, and not introduce a new module name having no
genuinely distinct content.</font></p>
</body>
</html>
</blockquote></div>