We're about to go public with .epub offerings
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB). These have all the complexities of
web documents plus three additional complications:
1) It is expected that third parties move them around, store them,
redistribute them and machine manipulate them between creation and display.
2) Once we release an edition, that edition is potentially in
circulation indefinitely (much like a print edition).
3) We expect to see far more updates to the code that converts the TEI
to epub than to our actual documents, so the version of the code is at
least as important as the version of the document.
The nearest I've come to a sane version number is a cross product of
document version, code version and original URL.
Daniel Paul O'Donnell wrote:
> Since I'm a "universalist" with regards to @type, this would get my vote
> anyway ;)
> But despite that, I'm not sure it solves the problem: @type isn't the
> kind of att that I'd use for meta-information about the content of the
> tag. I see it more as a way of subdividing the semantic range of the
> element. edition/@type="candidateRecommendation" or
> edition/@type="deprecated" doesn't seem to me to be a semantic
> subdivision in the way that edition/@type="digitalTranscription" |
> edition/@type="originalPrint" might be. In the first case I've really
> talking about status rather than type of edition; in the second I'm
> specifying specific types of edition rather than commenting on their status.
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> could we simply make <edition> take the @type attribute?
>> would that be simpler than a new attribute?
http://www.nzetc.org/ New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/ Institutional Repository