I am creating documentation for the Translation Editor style names ( a
flatten XML world). They will be available to OSIS to use. There is
already a light blue-grey highlight of style with a red arrow pointing at
it. I have over 200 scans. Hope they will be of help in explaining proper
usage.
Jim Albright
704 843-0582
Wycliffe Bible Translators
"Thomas BOEHME" <catb(at)gmx.net>
06/09/2004 02:31 PM
Please respond to osis-user
To: <osis-user(at)whi.wts.edu>
cc:
Subject: RE: [osis-user] OSIS 2.0 User Doc
Even without knowing any of the history, I do realize that <milestone
type="x-p"/> is bad encoding. That is why I said "like"...
Well, maybe this all comes back to my earlier request for some more
complete
sample documents. Maybe I have to see one of those properly encoded bibles
to realize why the content matters more. Having twenty bibles or so
myself,
I still fail to understand why the content is less problematic than BCV
with
all its "demonstrable errors". I don't think any two of my bibles have the
same headings, render the same things as quotes etc. But I think I will
leave it at that since I don't want to bog down this group with my
seemingly
naïve questions.
Let me just make one final remark: doesn't it strike you as odd that with
every example I cited from public OSIS documents (including those from the
official OSIS website) you are telling that it is using bad encoding? In
my
view (I deal a lot with XML in my everyday job) that says a lot about the
document *and* the markup.
I hope you don't get me wrong: I appreciate the effort. All I am trying to
add are 2cts programmer (and purist) wisdom. I really would like to help
make OSIS a success.
Cheers,
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Little [mailto:chrislit(at)crosswire.org]
Sent: 09. June 2004 11:11
To: osis-user(at)whi.wts.edu
Subject: Re: [osis-user] OSIS 2.0 User Doc
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Thomas BOEHME wrote:
[...]
*snip*
In theory, there's not much difference between assigning priority to
structural description (like <p>) and the BCV hierarchy. We considered
both
options extensively and chose the structural option partly because it was
in
use by a large set of our users already, partly because it is based on
actual content in light of centuries of scholarship rather than traditions
with demonstrable errors, and partly because everyone agreed that BCV can
easily be extracted from the structural system, but not vice versa.
[...]
This is quite simply bad markup. Any time an "x-" value is used, that
means
it is not part of the standard. In this case specifically, we have an
example of VERY BAD markup. This is exactly the opposite of how
paragraphs
are supposed to be marked up, and was done in spite of the document's
encoder having been told that this is bad encoding. Any documents abuse
the
standard in this manner are unlikely to be useful to anyone aside from
their
own encoders and should certainly never be released publicly.
[...]
Why does the content model matter? You can still extract portions of a
document by BCV reference, using the osisID attribute on book, chapter, &
verse containers.
[...]
suggest to make that the primary model.
I use OSIS from an encoder's and a programmer's perspective. I'm not
involved in print publishing at all, though certainly others are.
Book/section/paragraph works well for me precisely because I can still
always grab a section of a document using references on the osisID if I
need
to, but the content model sees Bibles as documents rather than just
databases with verses for records.
Not to be discouraging, and not that I have any more power than to make
suggestions, but I don't think there's any chance that we will change our
basic content model. The standard is already fairly mature, and there are
already many applications and encoded documents--all of which would become
invalid if such a huge change were made.
--Chris
--
To unsubscribe send an email with subject 'unsubscribe' to
osis-user(at)whi.wts.edu.
Please contact klowery(at)whi.wts.edu for questions.
http://127.0.0.1:9673/mailingLists/osis-user/archive/2004/2004-06/1086611210
250/1086771916276
[...]
|
