> At 04:07 PM 3/1/01 -0500, Anne Mahoney wrote:
> >"Rafal T. Prinke" wrote:
> > > Can it be somehow estimated "how much accepted" TEI is? Are
> > > there any major electronic editorial projects that do *not* use
> > > TEI?
> >Alas, yes. The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (http://www.tlg.uci.edu)
> >has a huge, beautiful database of Greek texts in a proprietary
> >markup scheme called Beta-code (described at the above URL)....
But didn't they start before the TEI was written (even TEI.1)?
I know when we started the Thesaurus Linguarum Hiberniae we
explicitly picked TEI and one of the reasons was that the TLG
was _not_ in TEI.
> ... and that's only one example of a major _academic_ electronic
> editorial project
I think "academic" was being taken as assumed in the original question,
given that we're talking about the TEI.
> (even accepting that you couldn't wrap TLG beta code in TEI markup,
> which of course you could). When you include commercial projects,
> the examples, er, proliferate. It's just they don't generally share
> their editorial or business processes so we don't know what they're
> built in (and many are SGML or XML, albeit not TEI).
Not only that, but even when they do use SGML, and even when asking an
author who is known to use SGML to write something for them _about_
XML, they are so paranoid that they don't tell the author they already
have a DTD. This has just happened to me -- fortunately I discovered
this before I spent any time converting my finished article out of XML
into Word (for them to convert back into SGML :-) They then refused to
send me their DTD, preferring to edit it up from a stripped but
roughly formatted plaintext file (saved as .txt from Netscape). Or
maybe they cut and pasted it from the PDF I sent them :-)
> On the other hand, the author of the original article under
> scrutiny, while predicting that most XML-based standards initiatives
> would fail, never addressed whether XML itself would "fail". It's
> like saying most companies making those newfangled electrical
> appliances would fail, while never saying that electricity itself,
> AC or DC, will fall out of use. TEI need not worry the tiniest whit
> whether other SGML/XML-based languages fail (whether they be "true
> standards" or commercial initiatives dressed up as standards, as so
> many of them are), as long as the technology and tools themselves
> continue to have a healthy future. I say, the more failures are
> around to learn from, the better.
Quite possibly. I'm more worried about the extent to which other
interests will try to bend the standards in their direction by
implementing bells and whistles which make it easier to use
non-portable extensions than to learn all this hard stuff with pointy
brackets. This hasn't happened with TEI because it's ouside the scope
of most of the big companies' interests, but XML/XSL/etc _are_ within
that scope. The risk is therefore that some aspects of XML/XSL/etc
will become less easy to bind into the eventual XML version of the
full TEI if we are trying to adhere strictly to the standards.