Announce: Zbedic 1.1

[kurochka]

Thanks, rafm, for a quick response.

Perhaps QT requires audio library. zbedic does not use it.

And I thought zbedic has received audio capabilities for full multimedia content encyclopedias.    

I noticed some problems with the dictionaries that use char-precedence and do not list all the characters they use. 
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

This could be it.  I do use char-precedence quite often.  However, it still seems strange in my Ukrainian Russian, the word for abbot is not displayed while the word for abbey is.  No unusual letters are used in either one.

I will try to find a smaller dictionary for you to look at.

{sa <link>} - see-also. <link> is another keyword that should be shown when the text surrounded by this tag is clicked.

This is something new, isn't it?  How is it different from {sa}link{/sa}?  No need for an answer, I will try it.

[kurochka]

Which dictionaries show this problem? If you could put one of them (the smaller, the better) somewhere to dowload, I would take a look at it.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

Here is the smallest dictionary with the problem I could find.  Do you need sources for the dictionary as well?  

Start with the first word of the dictionary 'a', which is displayed correctly.  The second and the third entries are not displayed.  The fourth displayed...  

Notice that the third and fourth entries are close (the fourth entry is in fact the third entry word + a suffix).

There are other seemingly random entries that are not displayed.  Is it something I did wrong with the source of the dictionary, wrong tags, wrong positioning of tags?  I didn't notice the problem under earlier versions of zbedic.

www.megaupload.com/?d=JP9MHK6Z

[rafm]

Thanks. I will take a look at it in the next couple of days. The source dictionary should not be necessary.

[rafm]

(...)
When I first noticed that some entries where not displayed (just nothing, the word on the left shows but nothing in the right pane), I thought it was the dictionary's problem. 
(...)
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

The problem is caused by the incompatibility between dictionaries generated with mkbedic/xeros prior to 1.0 and zbedic 1.0 and latter. I accidentally introduced this problem by fixing a bug in libbedic. Since it would be quite difficult to revert to the old code (and cause even more incompatibilities), I would suggest upgrading the dictionaries with mkbedic/xerox to 1.0 or later. I added a note to zbedic_format.txt and below that explains how to do it.

------------------

Important note!

The side effect of some bug fixes is that some dictionaries generated
with xerox / mkbedic prior to version 1.0 can be incompatible with
zbedic 1.0 and later. If some dictionary entries are not displayed,
follow the steps below to upgrade the dictionary to be compatible with zbedic
1.0 and later:

1. Compile and install the latest (1.0 or later) mkbedic and xerox
   (you will need to install development files for sqlite3 library)
   
2. Uncompress the dictionary with 'dictunzip old_dic.dic.dz'

3. Reindex the dictionary by running 'xerox old_dic.dic new_dic.dic'

4. Compress the new dictionary 'dictzip new_dic.dic'

The problem happens if the dictionary was created with mkbedic or
xerox version prior to 1.0, the dictionary contains char-precedence
and not all characters are specified in char-precedence and
search-ignore-chars (both xerox and mkbedic reports warnings if this
happens).

------------------

I will try to add handling of both >1.0 and <1.0 dictionaries in the next release, but currently upgrading dictionaries is the only solution.

[kurochka]

Thank you, rafm, for looking into this.

I haven't compiled dictionaries since before the 1.0 version.  As I remember the compilation was: mkbedic->diczip (no xerox).  I am a bit confused now.  Is xerox reintroduced to the compilation process for dictionaries in your simplified bedic format?  If so, what are the role of mkbedic and xerox?

If handling older versions of dictionaries would require significant code changes, I do not think it is that necessary to add that feature.  It appears everyone would easily be able to recompile the dictionaries.

One other question.  Will the dictionaries compiled after 1.0 be competible with zbedic prior versions?  Not important for me but for some users that have not upgraded yet.  Incompetibility might force them to upgrade.

[rolf]

I'm working on new recipes for zbedic so versions for both enviroments will be provided.

hrw, have you gotten around to it?  Just copying zbedic_1.0.bb to zbedic_1.1.bb did not do the trick     It barks out in the patching phase.

[Hrw]

rolf: nope - got few more important things to do and had to leave zbedic. Coyping is not good idea - zbedic need new recipes to get it built for opie and gpe.