Question(s)
Would a common digital format used in all Bible readers solve the issue of using Bibles on various devices?
Or, is that even an issue that readers care for Bible readers to address?
Edit: I had this question sitting for a while, but did not publish it for a few days. Just bumping it up a bit so that the discussion can continue some.
Or, is that even an issue that readers care for Bible readers to address?
Edit: I had this question sitting for a while, but did not publish it for a few days. Just bumping it up a bit so that the discussion can continue some.
posted by Antoine @ 11/28/2007 10:14:00 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I think it would be great to have a common format, but that always leaves the question of whose common format to use. I'd love to keep having support for digital Bibles I own regardless of what reader or device I choose to use, but I just don't see that happening any time soon.
And there are other problems. For instance, Accordance uses a highly optimized format to make blindingly fast searches. A common format, such as you see in the Sword project, is frequently much slower. Also, programs like to add goodies, and such to their base files, which, if they were to use a common format, which, of necessity, be a "least common denominator", they would not be able to utilize.
Actually, there _are_ common formats--which you will see if you browse the Sword project site. But even the Sword project takes these formats, and massages them to make them more useful in day-to-day use. To create a format that can go cross platform, and between programs just creates too many compromises.
I'll put it this way. It's not the same as a word processing document or spreadsheet. For one thing, the number of words in the average file is enormous! Bibles are huge entities. Sticking to straight text (xml, etc.) both increases file sizes, and the number of computer cycles to deal with them. Plus, depending on the _kind_ of file (Bible, commentary, topical reference), the needs differ. OSIS and others attempt to take all of this into account, but, in the end, the best they can be is a pre-processing step to actual usage.
For the end user, however, the main matter is that to go that route, you lose functionality, and that is a drawback. Not, mind you, that I'm altogether happy with the current state of affairs--particularly when one software publisher creates exclusive licenses, locking other software publishers out of a particular piece of literature, thus forcing people to either buy multiple programs, or forego the use of the lit in question. It's all a mess.
That's one reason why I prefer to stick with older, public domain texts. For this the Sword project is sufficient.
-Jon
Great comments so far. I sit on the side of an end-user moreso than a developer, but there are (should be) a better means of making a common format work.
For example, I was just talking with a friend about WordSearch and Logos. Two great pieces of software that hit two different areas of electronic study. My argument is that do differnet things apps should plug into each other and make it better for the end user. If I have WS, but want some language tools, instead of purchasing Logos, WS should have an extender that allows one to use a subset of the Logos library.
WS keeps their business, Logos keeps theirs too.
If these companies worked more along this mindset, then maybe it would be tha tmore people would using them, rather than sit with $3000 worth of software when all they needed was to find the root of the word "tithe."
I think this is an excellent question, Antoine. I have also had similar thoughts like this question jiggling around my brain over the years.
Laridian and Olive Tree (a couple of the paid Bible softwares) provide different content as well as similar. Moreover, Olive Tree's software is incredibly feature rich and leaves Laridian's in the dust by comparison. Additionally, Olive Tree has a ton more material available for novices and vets. However, Laridian's app is faster and more practical when trying to keep up with the preacher on Sunday and writing down sermons.
It used to be that Laridian was the obvious, preferred choice for Bible reading (again, I'm only addressing paid software which excludes the awesome Bible+ program). But, Olive Tree has come on aggressively strong lately in terms of developing their reader.
As an end-user, I prefer the varied formats for the sole purpose of encouraging software developers to try and out-do each other in a competitive market. I'm afraid that homogenizing software into a common format may not encourage greater diversity in functionality and content. As a result, we, the consumer, would not benefit as much from the lack of developers' seeking that competitve edge.
Addendum: my question was obviously addressing software diversity from the PDA side and not the desktop as other comments have previously noted.
Kevin, I mean this question for all sides (PDA, desktop, and print).
In web dev we have this saying, seperate the content from the presentation from the functionality. If you will, deal with elements as they were meant to be, and allow the richness to come from treating them unique but part of the same picture. When a Bible's format cannot be seperated from the functionality of the program, then we have the present picture.
If however, that which makes up the text, was agreeded to as a common format, and then the functionality on how to best get to that text was addressed, then we might see something different.
I know its not easy, but like web dev, if its done, innovations come much easier, and administration is also less of a hassle.
In the last article about the ESV on the Kindle, we posted a link to an API that the ESV folks allow for taking the HTML content and then using it however (some limitations apply).
Imagine a porgram built to read this HTML, and then on top of that the user coudl save notes and bookmarks on their device. Or even sync those to a central server for use across several platforms. That's where I ses a win-win for all.
Post a Comment
<< Home