On 11-08-25 07:21 AM, Doug Reside wrote:
> At some point, this distillation of TEI tags will, I think produce
> something that very much resembles HTML5 with some semantics that
> could be easily represented as RDF triples in RDFa or microdata or
> something similar. Will we then be left to wonder why we're using a
> separate XML schema at all?
Absolutely not. That stuff is UGLY and scarcely human-readable. TEI is
relatively editor-friendly and very well documented -- type a tag in
oXygen and see its explanation pop up for your enlightenment. Even if
you want your stuff in HTML5 in the end, it's going to be quicker and
more reliable to create it in TEI and transform it.
[You know that perfectly well, of course. There's a fair amount of
playing devil's advocate going on in this discussion. :-)]
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Sebastian Rahtz
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:26, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>> Martin has pointed out the quintessential hole in Sebastian's
>>> (excellent) idea. Unless we bring back TEIform= (which I am *not*
>>> suggesting), it's actually going to be difficult to find agreement on
>>> how to represent the concept "this is a<tei:name type='person'> that
>>> in tei_all would have been a<tei:persName type='laborer'
>> well, we could add a sort of hidden global attribute @equiv,
>> like the old TEIform, which we could use.
>> we're all thinking out loud here, but locked in a room
>> for a bit, I am fairly sure we could come up with a schema
>> to annotate (finger in air) 200 out the 500 TEI elements to
>> say they can safely be "80ed" to one of the other 300.
>> Sebastian Rahtz
>> Head of Information and Support Group
>> Oxford University Computing Services
>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>> Sólo le pido a Dios
>> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])