SWML suggestion...

[Antonio Carlos da Rocha Costa]

Dan,

  Thanks for the suggestion. You're right, the SWML formats
have been thought so that text and dicionary formats are
independent of one another. The links between them were
supposed to be established by the applications (editors, etc.)

  I will consider your idea very carefully. It also opens
the way to think of links to on-line reference dictionaries,
like SignBank, that we haven't thought about.

  Thanks a lot,

  Ant ­? io Carlos


> Dear Val, Antonio Carlos, and anyone else who is interested,
>
> I have a suggestion for extending SWML to make using it a little
> simpler. On those occasions when the sign used in a document
> corresponds precisely with what is available in a dictionary file
> (which has also been converted to SWML), it'd be nice to allow a
> pointer from a text SWML file to a Table SWML file. Basically,
> something along the lines of...
>
> <sign>
>     <external uri="us-dictionary.swml" gloss="same(2)" />
>     ...
> </sign>
>
> .... or something like that. I know that this creates some dependency
> issues, to say nothing of the search time in creating the initial SWML
> file (although this could be made smarter if the dictionary were
> inserted in suffix trees/Patricia tries or something similar); these
> are concerns which I share. However, it would reflect in SWML's
> semantics what is practiced by SW users; namely, that the dictionary is
> often referenced in typing running text. It would also help separate
> "core" dictionaries from those developed by the user.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Dan.
>