> ... I would really like to see more encouragement for users to
> stick to standard TEI schemas (along with tutorials and examples
> showing them how to do it) in place of encouragement that they leap
> into customization at the first sense that the standard tagsets
> won't do exactly what they want.
I agree wholeheartedly (so long as sticking to the standard TEI
schema still permits them to accurately describe the features of their
documents they want to encode). But that's not the point, here --
we're talking about whether or not documents that conform to a schema
that has been appropriately extended (i.e., there is not already a
TEI element that will do the job, ODD was correctly used, etc.) but
do not conform to 'tei_all' can be called "conformant" or not.
I believe quite adamantly that it is important that the answer be
"yes". This does not mean I think there is no benefit to creating
documents which conform to 'tei_all', just that said benefit is not
Note, BTW, that if the definition of conformance were to include
validity against 'tei_all', then no document that uses elements from
another namespace (including SVG, Mr. IMT :-) would be a conformant
> ... I know there have been cases in the past where I've made
> customizations I didn't need to make because I couldn't figure out
> from the guidelines how to do what I was trying to do.
Indeed, I know there have been such cases, too, and this is a very
strong argument in favor of lots of things including more tutorials,
better examples in the Guidelines, more workshops, etc. But it is not
an argument (at all) for disallowing customization.
> * I think interchangeability matters because the long-term survival
> of our documents will depend, not on whether humans can figure out
> from their ODD files how to use them, but whether automated systems
> can use them. If the majority of TEI documents twenty years from
> now use customized schemas that mean that they can't easily be used
> by automated systems, then I fear TEI will end up obsolete.
I completely disagree. It is a given that long term survival of
automated systems is not going to happen -- or at least, that we
should act is if any particular piece of software will be useless in
some number of years. The documents that survive will be those that
are well enough defined that a future geek can easily figure out how
it should be processed, even though *everyone* uses LMNL, and no
commercial company has supported XML, let alone TEI, for years.