Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 1a. Is the TEI about "interchange?"
> Rather than setting users up for the disappointment of expecting to easily
> benefit from the texts of others or to create texts that are going to be
> snapped up by other scholars, let's be realistic about the difficulties of
> interchange, under the best of circumstances and not make it a selling point
> for the TEI.
I agree that the TEI is all but useless for interoperable *anything*
at the moment, and I likewise acknowledge that even relatively more
interoperable markup languages such as HTML still suffer greatly from
differing interpretations by software that either ignores the standard
(IE) or interprets it in slightly different ways (Firefox vs Chrome).
Still, if we give up the goal of interoperability as a central, even
primary, goal of the TEI, then I see no reason:
* to use it,
* for any institution to support it, or
* for any granting agency to recommend its use.
Without a goal of interoperability, I might as well create my own tags
that won't force me to spend a lot of time looking for the appropriate
tag for the textual feature I wish to identify.
The current lack of consistency in TEI encoding (admittedly, in part,
the fault of editors like me as much as the standard itself) should be
cause for sorrow leading to repentance rather than an excuse to toss
out the goal itself. I can't imagine that most of the libraries and
universities that support the TEI do so in the hopes of providing a
medium for literary criticism using exceptionally clunky form of XML.
We already have plenty of better mechanisms for this, and a commented,
public viewable Google Doc would serve the purpose far more