| Change log entry 73719 | |
|---|---|
| Processed by: | richwarm (2021-11-07 00:38:38 UTC) |
| Comment: |
<< review queue entry 69481 - submitted by 'ralferoo' >> Incorrect separator between variant and rest of meanings, so the variant was being parsed together with the next meaning. Compare, for example, with the entry for 為｜为[wei2] which has its variant meaning entry formatted correctly. ----------------------------------------- Editor: > Incorrect separator Why do you say it's incorrect? > between variant and rest of meanings, "[the] rest of [the] meanings"? In this definition, "variant of 為|为[wei4]" is not one of the meanings; it's merely a statement that 爲 is a variant form of 為. > the variant was being parsed together with the next meaning. "the next meaning"? Like I said, "variant of 為|为[wei4]" is not one of the meanings. "being parsed"? By whom? (or by what?) = = = = = = = This is an area where our format could be improved, but it's not as simple as insisting that we always use a slash instead of a comma (or vice versa). The problem lies in the fact that, in cc-cedict definitions, "variant of X" is used in two different ways: 1. to add the meanings X has to the definition 2. merely to indicate that X is a variant form, without adding its meanings to the definition Examples: Type #1 Here's an example of the first type: 鑣 镳 [biao1] /bit (of a bridle)/variant of 鏢|镖[biao1]/ There are two senses: (a) "bit (of a bridle)" and (b) "throwing weapon" (which is what 鏢 means). Type #2 As for the 2nd type, let's go with the entry for 爲. If we formatted it as you suggest, it would be 爲 为 [wei4] /variant of 為|为[wei4]/because of/for/to/ Here, the meaning is /because/for/to/, and it is not intended that "variant of 為|为[wei4]" adds any further meanings, the way "variant of 鏢|镖[biao1]" added a further meaning in the entry for 鑣. This is not ideal. A user doesn't necessarily know which of these two types is intended, nor does a script. One solution is to retain the present format for type #1, and use parentheses as follows for type #2: 爲 为 [wei4] /(variant of 為|为[wei4]) because of/for/to/ This would make it possible for a script to distinguish between the two types and treat them differently. For example, in displaying the definition of 鑣, "variant of 鏢|镖[biao1]" could be replaced with the definition of 鏢 (i.e. "throwing weapon; ..."). On the other hand, in the definition of 爲, the script would know, because of the parentheses, that it would not be appropriate to replace "variant of 為|为[wei4]" with the definition of 為 (since it would be a duplication of "because of/for/to/"). I've already changed some of our "variant of" entries in line with this "parentheses" idea, but going through *every* one of these entries, making changes where appropriate, would be a big job. In the present case (爲), we could a) leave it as it is, since there's no rule I'm aware of in our format description that disallows it b) change the comma to a slash, as you suggest c) use parentheses to show it's type #2: /(variant of 為|为[wei4]) because of/for/to/ d) make it a type-1 definition instead of type-2: /variant of 為|为[wei4]/ I'm going with (d) for now. |
| Diff: |
- 爲 为 [wei4] /variant of 為|为[wei4], because of/for/to/ # + 爲 为 [wei4] /variant of 為|为[wei4]/because of/for/to/ # + 爲 为 [wei4] /variant of 為|为[wei4]/ |