SignPuddle 1.5 Reference Manual

[Adam Frost]

This is just a shot in the dark, but is it possible that europa was a graphic only while europau_1 was not and the graphic was not brought over? I will do some looking at it. 

Adam

  

-----Original Message-----
From: "Charles Butler" <chazzer3332000 at YAHOO.COM>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:54:45 
To:sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
Subject: Re: [sw-l] SignPuddle 1.5 Reference Manual

Adam 
  
Situation, I have a sign in the puddle Portuguse list as: 
  
europa (there is only the word there, no sign displays) 
europa-1 (there is a sign there)  
  
was there originally a non-IMWA sign in the europa list (or an earlier version) and now the europa-1 sign is the only one that was pushed over from 1.0 to 1.5? 
  
  
  
  


Adam Frost <adam at frostvillage.com> wrote: 

 
On 4/4/07, Charles Butler <chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com: <mailto:chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com> > wrote:  
Cool.  I have been able to delete the BLANK signs.  There are words there, but no signs at all.  Most often there is a word, and then several other signs that are X-1, X-2.  Is that deliberate?  Or, when I am entering a new definition, should change the title of the first one for reference as X-1.  There are a number of regional signs in Brazil, there are five words for Mother that I know of.   

I am not sure what you are referring to. I think that you are confusing me with the X-1 and X-2. Are these signs?

  
Query about TEXT.  Is this for the definition, so that I can write out full usage in spoken Language? The cross-referenced terms are a great feature. 
  
Charles 

Yes, that is a great use of TEXT. Here you can place the spoken language information that you wish about the sign.

Adam