Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Question about mdx 2.0 #3

Closed
0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF opened this issue May 16, 2021 · 1 comment
Closed

Question about mdx 2.0 #3

0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF opened this issue May 16, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Copy link

Hi,

I noticed the README mentioned the original mdx structure described by Xiaoqiang Wang and something called mdx 2.0. Is Xiaoqiang Wang's description considered 1.0? What's the difference between them? I'm a little confused as mdx is a pretty old file type and the original author started using a newer version in his mdict program several years ago. But the file structure of that version hasn't been reverse-engineered. Is mdx 2.- refer to this newer file format?

Thanks.

@ikey4u
Copy link
Owner

ikey4u commented May 16, 2021

@0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF the most common mdx format version are 2.0 and below, you may think the post made by wang is about these versions(most part of the structure between different version are the same but with a few difference). Most of the dictionary resource is made by the tool supplied here https://github.com/zhansliu/writemdict. But this tool seems not maintained at all and there are some improvements in docs and code.

For any other mdx version(above 2.0), it is still closed source and i think it is not a good idea to do reverse engineer to recover the new format, since there are enough mdx resouces which are made by the open sourced writemdict tool. Besides, is there any good reason to keep up with the new mdx format? i think no.

@ikey4u ikey4u closed this as completed May 18, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants