Re: [abbr=...] (Abbreviation cross-references?)

[Nils Roland Barth <jdict.nbarth@********>]

Jim Breen:
<snip: implementing ideas means…>
> (a) Stuart has to squeeze in the time to develop and test the
> changes;
> (b) I have to do the same for the conversion routines that feed the
> EDICT formats that are widely used
> (c) the database needs to be converted
> (d) a coordinated cutover needs to happen.
> 
> I guess the ideal would be to have a Database Mk 2 effort
> with a batch of changes, because the coordination, documentation,
> etc.  effort alone is hardly worth it for just one feature.

Got it – given the dependencies, specifically the database
itself, changes like this are better done in a batch/code branch,
rather than incrementally.


> Apropos of the "[abbr=...]", idea:
> 
> (a) I like it, *especially* if the XML coming out of it lets me do
> EDICT2-style "(See XXXX)" in the one pass.
> (b) we are probably pretty close to it anyway.

Glad to hear it!


> All of this is dependent on Stuart (and me)  having the time
> for a lot of coding and testing. I can squeeze out some,
> but I don't know how Stuart stands. What I really would like
> though is to get a batch of improvements done at the one
> time.

Got it.
Since this is not something one wants to do often,
some naive questions:
1. is there a list of these
  “changes that require DB format changes”
  somewhere?

2. in general, on what time scale do we expect the DB format
  to change? Annually? 5 years? 20 years?

3. these seem mostly “nice to have/wishlist” items,
  not huge deals, but are there any pressing items in this
  (that change the database)?

  Assuming not, these changes can probably be done in a
  branch and prioritized at leisure, assuming they don’t
  interfere too much with other hacking.


Thanks for the explanation!

best,
  ~nils