Ideas for future development

[tcblack]

OK gang, I've suggested this in the past; but I really think it would be a benefit to BW. Drop the rtf-based file format for the editor and adopt OpenOffice.org's zipped XML-based format. The files are smaller and more robust, and you'd not have to worry about M$ breaking the format.
Here's the link of the site: http://xml.openoffice.org/

Great idea!
I'd also want to be able to generate HOTLINKS in the editor. They should be linkable to BW internally and to the Web Externally. How about embedding graphics? There are times when it would be very useful (Right now I just paste the file path in and have to load it seperately.

I'm not sure about the current state of OLE or whatever it's called now, but I wish the editor were somehow more robust. If that means giving us the ability to "embed" our current wordprocessor (possible?) or to completely take the FREE and opensource code from Openoffice.org's writer and bend it to work the way we want it to - including the import export filters that would allow us to save in any format we wanted.

[jdarlack]

...giving us the ability to "embed" our current wordprocessor (possible?)....

I would love to see this feature! Often, while I am typing a research paper, I am continually switching between windows. Call me a post-modern, impatient 20-something pseudo-scholar, but I get tired of having to switch all the time. Even if one could "blank out" the editor window so that one could shrink one's word processor screen enough to work without jumping around windows, I would be delited! Otherwise, I will be forced to buy another monitor so that I can run two programs at the same time without switching or squinting!

I love the new hyperlinked auto info window. The fact that if I jump to another hyperlinked text it gives me a new window is quite handy, because I don't have to figure out where I last left off. Could such a feature be added to the hyperlinks in the lexicon browser (LB) or is there something I am missing. When one hits a hyperlink in the LB, the window changes and there is no "back" button to help out.

Also: Could hyperlinks be added to the front-matter for the abbreviations used in the various dictionaries/lexicons? It would be helpful to see who is being referred to in HALOT's and BDAG's entries for the sake of quicker research.

Boy have I gotten spoiled!

[MBushell]

What Philip says is true. Font changes in the word lists do require exiting the program though. Hence the message.

Mike

[Ivo Fasiori]

I believe it would be useful to have in BW
a Septuagint grammar, linked to Rahlf's text.

I'm thinking to Conybear's grammar, already
in public domain.

You can find the scanned pages at the CCEL
site:
http://www.ccel.org/c/conybeare/gree...ar/htm/TOC.htm

I don't remember any other Septuagint grammar in the public
domain, at least in English (Helbing's grammar is in German!).

Ivo

[TFJ]

Greetings. Regarding the Tools / Text Comparison Settings feature, is it possible to export / copy several verses, say Gen. 1:10-2:5, from several versions, say from the ESV, RSV, and NRSV, with the differences highlighted? This can be done in individual verse blocks, of course, but I was wondering if this could be done in ranges of verses or even entire chapters. If not, this would be a nice feature to add to future updates because it is interesting to see, for example, how the ESV and NRSV revised the RSV.

[kpurcell]

I've read almost all the TNIV NT, it's actually pretty nice. Last I heard BW was not pursuing having it because Zondervan is a bear to work with license-wise.

I'd like to see the God's Word Translation included, it's pretty nice and the publishers are REALLY open to allowing electronic publishers to include the translation free of charge.

www.godsword.org

I'd like to add a requestion for the Holman Christian Standard Bible from Broadman Holman.

[Philip Brown]

I was just looking at the parable of the sower in gospels.sdf. It would be nice if BW could, on the fly, highlight in different colors the differences between parallel texts. The user could choose which gospel (whatever is being compared) to set as the 'base' text. When a word differered from the base text, it would be highlighted with whatever color the user chose for that gospel. When two gospels agree against the base, the agreement would be highlighted with whatever gospel color is compared after the base (in my example, Mark).

In this example Matt is the base (orange), Mark next (red), Luke last (green).

For example:

Mat 13:3 ... VIdou. evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei,reinÅ
Mar 14:3 ... ivdou. evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn spei/raiÅ
Luk 8:5 ... VExh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei/rai to.n spo,ron auvtou/Å

Perhaps it would be nice to have the option to configure the Text comparison tool to highlight where all the compared texts AGREE, where two or more agree, and material that is unique. In that my example would look like this. Orange = all agree, 2 or more agreement marked by the color of the first gospel. Matt = Blue; Mark = Red; unique material = Green.

Matthew 13:3 kai. evla,lhsen auvtoi/j polla. evn parabolai/j le,gwn( VIdou. evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei,reinÅ
Mark 4:3 VAkou,eteÅ ivdou. evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn spei/raiÅ
Luke 8:5 VExh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei/rai to.n spo,ron auvtou/Å kai. evn tw/| spei,rein auvto.n o] me.n e;pesen para. th.n o`do.n kai. katepath,qh( kai. ta. peteina. tou/ ouvranou/ kate,fagen auvto,Å

Since having all this highlighting can be visually disorienting, the user ought to be able to choose 1 or more of the comparison features associated with Agreement vs. Disagreement comparison. For example, in the above example, I would choose to highlight only ALL agree, and 2 or more agree, yielding:

Matthew 13:3 kai. evla,lhsen auvtoi/j polla. evn parabolai/j le,gwn( VIdou. evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei,reinÅ
Mark 4:3 VAkou,eteÅ ivdou. evxh/lqen o` spei,rwn spei/raiÅ
Luke 8:5 VExh/lqen o` spei,rwn tou/ spei/rai to.n spo,ron auvtou/Å kai. evn tw/| spei,rein auvto.n o] me.n e;pesen para. th.n o`do.n kai. katepath,qh( kai. ta. peteina. tou/ ouvranou/ kate,fagen auvto,Å

This example also brings up the need for the Text Comparison feature to be able to cross verse boundaries. Luke 8:5 = Matt 13:3-4 = Mark 4:3-4.
If the Text Comparison feature couldn't cross verse boundaries, the second sentence in Luk 8:5 would be regarded as unique, when it really isn't.

[samuelholder]

while we're at it, it would be great if bw would create an update with the 'believer's study bible' by criswell.

[jdarlack]

I heartily concur with Philip Brown! What an excellent idea! I have toyed with doing such a comparison on my own using the word list generator. There, I would generate a list of words from one text and compare it to the word list of another text. I would then do a limited search of ONLY the two texts using the list of words COMMON to both texts as an inclusion list. Then all vocabulary that is similar in both texts is highlighted.

Here's an example of the results with Isa 40:6-8 & 1Pet 1:24-25 that proves the method potentially helpful (I marked the words that were not directly involved with the quote in blue. The red words are the common vocab, the black words reveal the differences in Peter's quote of Isaiah):

Isaiah 40:6-8 fwnh. le,gontoj bo,hson kai. ei=pa ti, boh,sw
pa/sa sa.rx co,rtoj kai. pa/sa do,xa avnqrw,pou w`j a;nqoj co,rtou
evxhra,nqh o` co,rtoj kai. to. a;nqoj evxe,pesen
to. de. r`h/ma tou/ qeou/ h`mw/n me,nei eivj to.n aivw/na

1 Peter 1:24-25 dio,ti

pa/sa sa.rx w`j co,rtoj kai. pa/sa do,xa auvth/j w`j a;nqoj co,rtou\

evxhra,nqh o` co,rtoj kai. to. a;nqoj evxe,pesen\

to. de. r`h/ma kuri,ou me,nei eivj to.n aivw/naÅ

tou/to de, evstin to. r`h/ma to. euvaggelisqe.n eivj u`ma/jÅ

The problem of course, is that this does not take into account word order! So, when all of this said and done, it would be just as easy to visibly compare the two texts!

So, Philip Brown's idea remains the answer!

Excellent suggestion!

[Ben Spackman]

Once the links get activated in all the lexicons, notes, etc. I'd like to know how to add links to Biblical texts, user-texts (like Apostolic Fathers, etc), and lexicons in the notes of our own compiled versions.