Chinese Version Navigation Problem [solved]
This problem has been fixed! (updated 4/29/2014)
In other versions, if we want to go to a certain verse in the same book, we don't need to type the book name. For example, if we are in Gen 1:1, and we want to go to Gen 9:25, typing 9 25 is enough.
However, it seem that in Chinese version, BW does not recognize the "space" between 9 and 25. When I type 9 25, it reads 925. (see the screen shot below.)
But if I type gen 9 25, it works.
Hope this problem can be fixed soon.
Older is Better, or, All Change is Bad, or, Why You Should Use BW7
I am running BW9, 188.8.131.52.390, Windows 7 Home Premium Edition Service Pack 1 (build 7601), 64-bit.
I have done nothing special to enable any language or keyboard, have never experimented with IME (Microsoft Input Method Editor.
All the BibleWorks documentation that I could find about the Command Line and Chinese versions applied to BW7. In BW7 I am able to navigate normally from the Command Line. (As described in the documentation I refer to below, BW7 has 3 input modes for the Command Line. The first 2 handle navigation normally, the third, called Automatic, behaves just like BW8 and BW9 do (as you described above).
In BW8 and BW9, when the search version is CUS, the Command Line turns a pale yellow, with IME in the upper right hand corner:
If I right click in the Command Line, I get some additional lines at the top of the popup:
In both BW8 and BW9 clicking on any of the options provided had exactly the same effect: no change in behaviour. Which may be because I haven't done anything about keyboards. Still, it seems a step backwards to take away the simple navigation capabilities of BW7.
- BW7 Help Section 18b The Command Line - Arabic and Far Eastern Languages
- BW8 Help Section 26 The Command Line - Arabic and Far Eastern Languages
- BW9 Help Section 36 The Command Line - Arabic and Far Eastern Languages
- BW Forum FAQ item http://kb.bibleworksllc.com/kmp/inde...nd-Korean.html
All 4 of these items describe the situation in BW7; items 1, 2, & 3 appear to be identical.