Using xo marker

Question

It used to be the case that the xo marker was optional in cross references, but now PT 8.0.100 Basic Checks References seems to demand it for every cross reference. I cannot find a setting for it, but I have a project (FB38) that does not use xo at all (but does have 14752 cross references) and PT does not allow me to download the project into the DBL without it, it seems.

Is there a way to tell PT not to demand the xo marker?

Answer 1

In this instance, it is not the DBL that is requiring them. The schema for USX (the XML stored in DBL) does not require the “xo” character element. As you say, it is Paratext which does require it.

anon982572 – Is the omission of the xo desired specifically for a specific publishing need / purpose? If that is the reason, I would also advocate that it is a reasonable practice to leave them in the text, and allow the publishing process to extract them or hide them. In Publishing Assistant / InDesign this would be simple.

Also, for upload to DBL, I believe it would be possible to remove them using a file called dblChanges.txt, in which you can specify changes to make to the USFM prior to its conversion to USX. The downside of this (if you were to remove the xo) is that any publisher who wants to work with the text is left without them.

I suppose the Paratext team has not received a compelling reason for this to be optional. Perhaps you can explain the case you have.

jmkla

Comments

Let me try to explain our challenge here.

We have a traditional version published originally in 1938 but it is still in use. We will keep this historical version still available in print but also through the emerging Bible app.

The printed copies of this particular version has up until today used a layout where the cross references appear directly after each verse. [I do not know how one could add an image here, so if you would like to see what this has meant in practice, let me know]. Thus, originally when we created the PT files for this version, no xo marker were used, because we saw no use for them. We could also download the version into DBL without any trouble, but that was some years ago.

In the app something similar will happen: when you click the verse text, the app will show you the cross references as hyperlinks.

In my understanding, we do not need the xo marker at all in this particular case, since the user of a printed copy or the app will not face any challenge in knowing into which verse the cross reference in question happens to refer to. The problem would, as far as I can think about it, emerge only when cross reference are separated from the text and placed e.g. on a column beside the text or as foot notes at the bottom of a page. This would, of course, then happen only with a printed version of the Bible.

I do not think we should press the users to employ markers (and items) in PT when these will not be used while publishing the text. It does not seem to me a good practice to make people add things to their texts and later make them remove these when the time comes to publish the Bible. I would rater make the use of such markers as optional. In case we already have a wonderfully working system to add the xo marker when the users need them. This is why it is difficult for me to understand why these always must be used.

Answer 2

I do not know if the DBL will accept the cross-references without the cross reference origin references. Fortunately there is a method to easily add them .

• From the main menu: click Tools > Advanced > Add Missing Origin References.

Comments

Thanks, CrazyRocky. I am aware of this but the omission of the xo markers was done by purpose, thus, I’d like to find the way not to add them.

Answer 3

You could always add them in (temporarily) just for the DBL Text Bundle creation, and then strip them out later. Or leave them in there and strip them out at publishing time using a Regular Expression. The 2nd option keeps the Paratext checks happy, but might annoy the user.