Hi Gerard,
The duplication of words that are spelled the same in
different dialects
or orthographies is inherent in the database design. This is essential
if you want to have definitions and etymology in these dialects or
orthographies. If you are willing to accept that definitions and
etymology can be spelled in orthographies other than Sass there could be
a solution but as the nds.wikipedia also has to standardise on Sass, I
think this is a rather unlikely scenario.
Definition and etymology would be the
same. Your approach would be a
duplication of efforts. It would be sufficient to allow one entry to belong
to several orthographis, as in 1:n instead of 1:1. So this is not inherent
in the database design. It is the design bug that I complain about for some
time.
1:n would allow us to enter the data the way we think appropriate. And it
still leaves us the opportunity to add individual entries when other users
really think that explanations must also be duplicated along the
orthographies (which I really doubt). So they can, if they want to, but they
are not forced.
Kind regards,
Heiko
--
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen f�r GMX Partner:
http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner