Re: jmdict: question about ent_seq
- From: Jean-Marc Desperrier <jmdesp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:14:18 +0100
Paul Blay wrote:
[...]. Second entries may be merged, deleted or have the headwords and
or readings added or corrected. So the entry you link to may disappear
or no longer be the same as when you linked to it.
Which if I dare say is really a pain to handle and defeats the very
purpose of ent_seq. It would be much better to have a ressource that
lists such changes with a format like "ent_seq code (ent_seq)+", code
being M for merge, S for split, etc.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: jmdict: question about ent_seq
- From: Paul Blay
- Re: jmdict: question about ent_seq
- References:
- jmdict: question about ent_seq
- From: andersson . johnny
- Re: jmdict: question about ent_seq
- From: Paul Blay
- jmdict: question about ent_seq
- Prev by Date: Re: "Usagi to Kame"
- Next by Date: Re: "Usagi to Kame"
- Previous by thread: Re: jmdict: question about ent_seq
- Next by thread: Re: jmdict: question about ent_seq
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|