Duplicate Repo?

[gersh0m]

Isn't your xml file a copy of the one in the 'original' Perseus Repo:

https://github.com/PerseusDL/lexica
?
If so I don't think it is a good idea to create a separate one.

[helmadik]

hi, in principle you're right of course. Unfortunately we haven't had the wherewithal to systematically track down and resolve every difference that has arisen between the versions over the years. In this version, some changes made us incompatible for a good long while with the Tufts version, like the change to Unicode from betacode. Now, I think it's a matter of budget and time; I try to keep up with issues reported on the Tufts side, however. For a sense of the differences, you can also look at Chris Blackwell's blog posts on the different LSJ versions, github.com/Eumaeus

[gersh0m]

The files from that project as can be seen in xml header.
There isn't any reference to the original project.
Some (?) modifications have been made without any trace in the file (as the one made inside that project/repo).
Those are facts not a "principle". And in fact it is much less effective to work on two project instead of one, just in my humble opinion.

[helmadik]

Thanks; you do not need to contribute here if you don't want to. Modifications were sporadically, not consistently, reported in Perseus-Tufts, and the same is true here. People at Tufts are aware, for what it's worth, and I try to keep up with issues reported there. Is this a duplication of effort? yes.
As for "There isn't any reference to the original project." -- this is precisely what's in the header, as you noticed, and also in the first line of the Readme: from Perseus.
Again, in principle, we'd all be doing pull requests on one file, sure, but this became tricky, or rather impossible, when one project switched to Unicode (among other things) when the other could not accommodate that yet (in fact, this was years before there was such a thing as a repository on github for these files). Life has happened. Now github is here and I'm sharing this edited version. You can go ahead and use it, or ignore it. Your choice.

[helmadik]

PS: I forgot that, unlike in LSJ, I have not added an editorial note about this version in the headers of the Lewis & Short files; this is now done. So thank you for bringing this up.