26-06-2025, 05:01 AM
The following is just for completeness and not likely to affect many users.
The issue of the 'invalid' label (locus) on f89v2 (shine through from the other side) has now also been addressed in transliteration files from other authors, specifically the ones with codes GC, IT and VT.
In these files, the locus in question has been marked using a dedicated code in a largely unused field of the IVTFF format, namely the 'locator' as defined in the format definition You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., (see table 8). This also implies a trivial change to the format definition, reflected in the aforementioned table 8.
The version numbers of the files were not increased - the files were simply modified, because the contents are unchanged.
A new version (2.2) of ivtt has been created You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with the only difference that it will never write any locus with such a code to the output file. The old version will work just fine, but will not recognise the 'invalid' field.
The issue of the 'invalid' label (locus) on f89v2 (shine through from the other side) has now also been addressed in transliteration files from other authors, specifically the ones with codes GC, IT and VT.
In these files, the locus in question has been marked using a dedicated code in a largely unused field of the IVTFF format, namely the 'locator' as defined in the format definition You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., (see table 8). This also implies a trivial change to the format definition, reflected in the aforementioned table 8.
The version numbers of the files were not increased - the files were simply modified, because the contents are unchanged.
A new version (2.2) of ivtt has been created You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with the only difference that it will never write any locus with such a code to the output file. The old version will work just fine, but will not recognise the 'invalid' field.