Re: [edict-jmdict] radkfile

["Jim Breen" <jimbreen@*********>]

On 04/09/07, Jim Rose <jim@kanjicafe.com> wrote:
>  On Sep 4, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Jim Breen wrote:
>  > On 04/09/07, Jim Rose <jim@kanjicafe.com> wrote:
>  >
>  > > Ah we have a problem Houston...
>  > > The last communication I received from you had the most recent
>  > radkfile at:
>  > >
>  > > ftp.monash.edu.au:/pub/nihongo/radkfile.gz
>  >
>  > Yep. That's still the public release version. I realise that I haven't
>  > been keeping it up-to-date. The ftp server belongs to the University's
>  > IT Services Dept, and although I have a lot of privileges there, it's
>  > still a bit messy keeping it current. I have added radkfile to its
>  > daily updater, so it should stay in step with the version used by
>  > WWWJDIC.
>
>  Ok... so is it 'better' to use the one inside the whole kradzip.zip?
>  I mean will it 'more often' be current still in comparison to the .gz
>  version at Monash?  Or is either version equal in its probability of
>  being 'the one' ?  I somehow remembered how to use the 'unzip' tool
>  so its not the end of the world.

As of yesterday, the versions of kradfile/radkfile used by WWWJDIC and
distributed via the ftp archive and my WWW site should be the same (within
24 hours, as there is a cron-driven update cycle.)

>  kradfile might be the better file for many purposes as I look at
>  it...  but when you update radkfile, are you updating kradfile first
>  and then processing, or is kradfile "out of date" so to speak
>  compared to radkfile?

I only ever edit kradfile. radkfile is built from it.

>  Well, then the next logical question is:  are there any differences
>  in the EOL character's used by the files, or can either be processed
>  post-decompression the same?

They should all have Unix-style EOL, i.e. \n and no \r.

Jim

-- 
Jim Breen
Honorary Senior Research Fellow
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/