[a comment from Marcus Bingenheimer, forwarded with his permission]
A feedback from the oriental studies quarter: In Buddhist studies texts
exist in Chinese, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Japanese, and a host of
European languages. The translations can be partial or complete,
sometimes the original survived sometimes not. I once tried to mark-up
a small fraction of a Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese
Buddhist Canon in TEI but had to give up. I just couldn't find a way to
describe the tangle properly.
With <relatedbiblItem> I feel I would have a much better chance. I
believe I speak for most people in Buddhist studies when I say that for
our purposes the current bibl mark-up mechanism is not strong enough.
There are a number of other issues, like indigenious ways of defining a
text (scroll, sutra, commentary) or a collection (canon, encyclopedia),
that cannot easily be integrated into the <monograph> <series>
<article> structure and where a <relatedbiblItem> element would be of
great help. For the same reason a restriction of attribute values
would probably not be very helpful for asian studies. We would have to
modify the Schema or DTD to let in the relations we need.
Greetings from Taipei
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.