On 3/6/07, John W. Kennedy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If they're going to use TEI, then they should do it properly. Otherwise,
> let 'em stick with HTML, and save both the temporary labor of converting
> to TEI and the permanent hardware overhead of converting back again on
> every use.
Actually, the impetus here is to SAVE labor. We currently have
multiple file formats for each text. We would love to be able to
offer more and more. But the management overhead in keeping each one
sync'd in terms of errata fixes ... blech!
The idea is to have a master format that can be converted to the end
user formats by a machine. Then, when a typo is found ... only the
master file need be updated and the server re-generates the end-user
TEI was chosen as a possible master format for its richness and
ability to cover darn near anything we throw at it (plus it is an open
standard with a open community in active support/development).
The problem, as I've said in other messages, is that our markup is
done on a volunteer basis by people who tend to think in layout terms
vs semantic terms (I admit that the shift in my own thinking still
comes back to bite me at times ... I don't always think in semantical