Firmware 4.24.15672

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by akorx

It's the same thing for me on my aura HD : all is very slow ...

The screen is not reactive: I have to click several times for it to react (to select a word, to open a book, etc) .

Another thing (really less important) : when you click on the little lock to choose the orientation (portrait or landscape), you can't escape without doing a choice.

No problems with my Clara, even when accessing one of my large, multi-volume books. The interface is fast and responsive with virtually zero lag, which is to say no more than what I've come to expect from an e-ink device.

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by geek1011

The dates inside the zip should be newer, and there may be a prefix_exceptions file in it.

I suppose we'll have a definitive answer on October 1.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

And despite it all, my question has never actually been answered. Are we certain there will be a copyright notice listed along with the definitions, or is there some other method we can use to determine which dictionary we're using?

Earlier you responded to a post of mine which was fairly explicit with what was going to happen. Any reason that you don't want to believe that?

Of course, you did misunderstand my statement of "by looking at the date". I wasn't talking about a file date. I was suggesting to look at the calendar. The release notes stated, and I quoted it, "as of October 1, 2020". I think that is fairly clear when you will see the new dictionaries.

But, yes, there are people here with the new dictionaries. There are several people here, including myself, involved in Kobo's beta firmware list. The new dictionaries were made available to us to test with. I only looked at the English dictionary, so maybe some won't have the copyright statement. It will depend on the vendor and the contract with Kobo.

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by davidfor

Earlier you responded to a post of mine which was fairly explicit with what was going to happen. Any reason that you don't want to believe that?

So you have access to the new dictionaries and can confirm that they will have a copyright notice appended to the definitions? Because that is not how the current dictionaries function.

Originally Posted by davidfor

Of course, you did misunderstand my statement of "by looking at the date". I wasn't talking about a file date. I was suggesting to look at the calendar. The release notes stated, and I quoted it, "as of October 1, 2020". I think that is fairly clear when you will see the new dictionaries.

You snarked at me. I snarked back. Isn't it fun?

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

So you have access to the new dictionaries and can confirm that they will have a copyright notice appended to the definitions? Because that is not how the current dictionaries function.

It is how some of the current dictionaries function. For example the default French-English translation dictionary has
"Source: Merriam-Webster's Francais - English Dictionary"
at the end of every definition.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

So you have access to the new dictionaries and can confirm that they will have a copyright notice appended to the definitions? Because that is not how the current dictionaries function.

It depends on the dictionary. The English dictionary doesn't have the copyright notice, the English - Spanish has. And these are the original dictionaries, as I haven't synced my Kobo.

[geek1011]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

So you have access to the new dictionaries and can confirm that they will have a copyright notice appended to the definitions? Because that is not how the current dictionaries function.

I did mention that dictzip v3 has a new way to add credits to the dictionaries, so it's likely that it will be used.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

So you have access to the new dictionaries and can confirm that they will have a copyright notice appended to the definitions? Because that is not how the current dictionaries function.

Well, that is what I said, isn't it? And as has been stated by others, some of the current dictionaries already have them.

You snarked at me. I snarked back. Isn't it fun?

Really, that was you being snarky? And yes, I was being snarky. I have no idea why it was so hard to understand what was clearly stated in the release notes and I was sick of the repeated questions.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by davidfor

Really, that was you being snarky? And yes, I was being snarky. I have no idea why it was so hard to understand what was clearly stated in the release notes and I was sick of the repeated questions.

Except it wasn't exactly clear, as I pointed out earlier... the wording was potentially ambiguous, and given that some people were talking about the new dictionaries it's easy to see how the confusion arose.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by twowheels

Except it wasn't exactly clear, as I pointed out earlier... the wording was potentially ambiguous, and given that some people were talking about the new dictionaries it's easy to see how the confusion arose.

ONE, not "some". ONE poster said they had the new dictionaries already, causing one other poster to ask how they could get them. THAT prompted the whole string of "ooh me too please" posts that irked davidfor. "Ambiguity" is clearly in the eye of the beholder because like davidfor, I saw none.

[twowheels]

Do you not agree that the release notes could have been read either way, as I pointed out earlier in the thread?

Did you not just acknowledge that at least one user made it sound like they had the dictionaries already (and did in fact have them)?

...therefore, can you not agree that the initial confusion is not entirely the fault of those who were wondering why they didn't also have the new English dictionary?

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by twowheels

Did you not just acknowledge that at least one user made it sound like they had the dictionaries already (and did in fact have them)?

The fact that ONE (not "at least" one, only one) user claimed (wrongly) that they already had the new dictionaries is not proof of, or even suggestive of, ambiguity to me. Had there been many, or even simply several, of such posts then I might have considered the wording to have been unclear.

[snarkophilus]

Originally Posted by geek1011

If you can find the dictionary in an alternate format, you can use PyGlossary to convert it to a dictutil dictfile, then to a Kobo dictionary.

Idly wonders if a) I can convert the old Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition I bought for my Palm all those years ago, and b) if it's actually a good dictionary...

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by davidfor

Really, that was you being snarky?

Indeed.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

The fact that ONE (not "at least" one, only one) user claimed (wrongly) that they already had the new dictionaries is not proof of, or even suggestive of, ambiguity to me. Had there been many, or even simply several, of such posts then I might have considered the wording to have been unclear.

I didn’t claim that’s what suggested ambiguity, I claimed that’s what gave credence to the other possible interpretation of the ambiguously worded release notes, which I quoted earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by twowheels

[...] I think we can see where the confusion comes from:

> We've updated 18 of our current dictionaries and added 4 new ones (as of October 1, 2020):

Does the parenthetical statement apply to the entire sentence, or just the portion after 'and'? We now know that it applies to the entire sentence, but it can be correctly interpreted either way.

It can be very easy to interpret that as ... "we've updated our 18 current ones (already), and added 4 new ones (available Oct 1)", which is how I initially read it.