They looked at TEI and others when considering whether to include this 
in EPUB 3 but decided that it did more than necessary.  EPUB is meant as 
a format for delivery, not an archival format, so they are only trying 
to cover the limited set of use cases described here.

On 12/5/2011 5:09 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
> Thanks, Kevin,
>
> One would think that proposing a new standard, even one of restricted
> scope, would entail having consulted and referenced other existing
> standards, or at least would require notifying the target groups
> (Lexicog and Euralex lists come to mind, minimally).
>
> Oh well. I'll push this into Lexicog, at least.
>
> Best,
>
>    Piotr
>
>
> On 05/12/11 17:50, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> Forwarding this from the mailing list of the IDPF EPUB Working Group.
>> Note the draft proposal for a working group on facilitating inclusion of
>> dictionaries in EPUB.  I believe feedback should be sent to Markus
>> Gylling, whose email is given in Google Code.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:epub-working-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Markus Gylling
>>> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 5:50 PM
>>> To: Google Groups EPUB
>>> Subject: Re: Charter proposals for dictionaries and indexes projects
>>> now available for comment
>>>
>>> … and the proposals are available at
>>>
>>> http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/wiki/DictionariesCharterProposal
>>> and
>>> http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/wiki/IndexesCharterProposal
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2011, at 11:29 PM, Markus Gylling wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> following the virtual workshop on dictionaries and indexes that was
>>> held on 18 October, the ad-hoc groups that were formed have now
>>> published drafts of charter proposals for two working groups on indexes
>>> and dictionaries, respectively.
>>>>
>>>> As per IDPFs policies and procedures, these are hereby submitted to
>>> the membership for a 14 day comment period (ending December 16, 2011).
>>>>
>>>> Comments received will be reviewed by the AHGs and IDPF board and the
>>> subsequent step would be for a revised version of the proposal to be
>>> approved by the IDPF board for submission to members for a consent vote
>>> to approve working group creation.
>>>>
>>>> We welcome your input!
>>>>
>>>> On behalf of the AHGs,
>>>>
>>>> /markus
>>