Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Tom Malcolmson wrote:
>> My bibliography is currently in XHTML, edited using FrontPage.
>> I have
>> now started applying styles as semantic tags, eg. span.author,
>> span.title (my tags correspond roughly to TEI tags). The styles
>> CSS styles: they can be nested and are inline when used with
>> This allows me to convert the document to TEI XML using a simple
>> transformation (which I haven't written yet)
> ah you reckon so? I have never felt confident of a 100% translation of
> I always find it needs a 1% manual fix. No matter.
Ok, I'm cheating a bit. I actually don't know how to write a transform,
but I'm a C++ (and a bit of Python) developer so it would be fairly easy
for me to write some code that translated the document for me.
When I said 'simple' transform, the simple refers to the fact that all
the necessary info is there and easily accessible - it would be a simple
one-to-one translation. The original document is XHMTL, and my
transform (or algorithm) would simply ignore everything except the
'class' attributes which would be translated into TEI elements.
>> Can anyone tell me when TEI P5 is expected to be complete?<br>
> I may be speaking out of turn (and certainly not officially), but
> I suspect you'll see P5 coming out as a phased release throughout the
> first half of 2005. There is plenty to use already, but lots of chapters
> need big revisions to the prose, several modules await overhauls, and
> several new modules are in the wings. But switching to the P5 way of
> may be a plausible step after Christmas. That's the attitude I'll try
> the Board and Council towards, anyway.
> The biggest question hanging over P5, I believe, is that of compatibility
> with P4. As the move towards closer interoperability with W3C
> standards etc
> bites deeper, and you find @lang --> @xml:lang, @id --> @xml:id, <TEI.2>
> --> <TEI xmlns="......">, <ref target="foo"> --> <ref target="#foo">
> [NOTE: don't
> all these as fixed decisions, some are unconfirmed), all your
> documents have
> to change, and all your processing applications have to change. Will this
> community get behind the changed TEI, or stay with the old system?
> I am fairly sure that most people would agree the changes are
> correct and good, but I worry that in practice they'll say "great, but
> not for
> _my_ documents, _now_".
I would argue that TEI is in an early enough stage of its development
that it should still be allowed to make changes that break backward
compatibility. If you don't allow yourself this then you really limit
your ability to improve the spec.
When you get to P8, and everyone is writing their documents using TEI,
you will no longer enjoy this luxury.
> ah well. thoughts on this from others very welcome. remember
> its me speaking personally here, not speaking for the consortium!