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?
>   http://z-m-l.com/go/gardn/gardn-hybrid6.html

how do you think i can mount entire books with diffs?
>   http://z-m-l.com/go/gardn/gardn-hybrid7.html

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