Paul Groves writes:
> I'm currently involved with a project which is moving towards marking-up
> transcriptions of some Greek papyrii (and fragments), to enable the papyrii
> (and hopefully the metadata associated with them) to be searched and
> What I would like to know before proceeding with large scale mark-up of the
> papyrii is - should I be recommending use of one of these DTDs and guidlines
> instead of the ones we have developed? I believe what we have developed will
> do the job, but I'm worried about doing something one way if everyone else
> is using something else!
I can't answer directly, but (in a way) does it matter what DTD you
use? What I would care about is whether I could define the
relationship between my DTD and DTDs X & Y. Do they compare in the
features being marked up, and the granularity?
It always seems to me legitimate to have a different authoring DTD and
archival DTD, with a 100% reliable transform between the two. That
transformation could also incorporate validation beyond what is
possible with a DTD.
So I do not think there is a situation from which you cannot recover
(unless you decide later that you wish you had tagged features which
you initially ignored...); although I very much agree that for
authoring/creation *guidelines* one is well advised to build on other