keith said:
BB you wanted some clarification so I will try.
um, ok, i guess.
First, I do not have the time to look closely at either tool nor overs, as it would take to long for me to properly analyze them, and due the analysis merit.
um, ok, i guess. :+)
So I will proppose a possible design. Take the good, leave the bad.
um, ok, i guess. ;+)
In my opinion would be a tool with four windows/frames: 1) the scan 2) version 1 3) version 2 4) the proofed version ... The scan (1) would be optimally syncrhonised with the passage being checked. ... Now, we have three cases to consider: a) version 1 is correct b) version 2 is correct c) neither 1 or 2 is correct d) the case where 1 and 2 are correct is actually not possible in our context unless version 1 and 2 are comming from different edition. Still we can handle this in the same manner as c. ... Hope this helps. If not hit delete.
ok. now i'm curious... :+) keith, how do you think i pull off all the comparisons i do? how do you think i can sling around lists of diffs like i do?
how do you think i can mount entire books with diffs?
how do you think i resolve the diffs in all the books i do? i can tell you how i do it! i do it with tools i've programmed that do all the things that you talk about, and more. that's how i do it, keith. so you don't have to do hypothetical writeups, keith, especially if you're short on time, because i have a big batch of post-hypothetical reality sitting in my toolbox. it's not that your writeup doesn't "help". it's that we are past that point in time... and we have been, for a while. -bowerbird