Is \rem valid in PT8

Question

I’m just learning my way around PT8, so this might be a silly question, but:

Is the USFM code \rem valid in PT8? If yes, why do lines with \rem preceding make it through into Print Draft? [The latest USFM document I have is v. 2.4. Has that been superseded in PT8?]

Answer 1

Paul:

Or do I understand from your comment that it is “so new that you may need Paratext 8.1” that USFM 2.4 is valid for PT8?

Yes, Paratext 8.0 only supports USFM 2.x.

EDIT: Also, for documentations sake, it turns out this was caused by a character style in the \rem line (specifically \bk).

Answer 2

Paul:

The latest USFM document I have is v. 2.4.

You can easily see the latest USFM standard by Googling it.

Comments

So it looks like the newest version is 3.0? Is there no PDF available? It would sure be nice to download it for reference; my internet right now is taking about five minutes to load a page, and I’m not even sure what I’m looking for will be included there…

---

More specifically, if you go to paratext.org, there’s a link at the bottom to “Scripture Markup (USFM/USX)” which should take you to the very latest:
https://ubsicap.github.io/usfm/

Note that USFM 3.0 is so new that you may need Paratext 8.1 (and set your project to USFM 3, under Project Properties and Settings > Advanced) in order to use all of its features. But that shouldn’t matter for an older marker like \rem

https://ubsicap.github.io/usfm/identification/index.html?highlight=rem#rem

Regarding the original question: If data in an \rem field is making it through Print Draft, I’m guessing that’s a bug. (Is anyone in this forum aware of good reasons for printing this data?) Could you use Help > Report a Problem to report it?

---

Thanks for the direct link to that page, anon468618; it just takes minutes to load here… If someone could compile a PDF of 3.0, it would be most welcome! Or do I understand from your comment that it is “so new that you may need Paratext 8.1” that USFM 2.4 is valid for PT8? Well, in any case, a PDF would be great for offline reference!

Anyway, it looks like \rem is still valid in SUFM 3.0, so it must be a bug. I’ll try reporting it.