On 22 Aug 2011, at 01:13, Doug Reside wrote:
> I agree that the TEI is all but useless for interoperable *anything*
> at the moment
that's rather despairing. Surely MM's whole Monk project put the lie to this idea some years ago?
I meet TEI texts all the time, and find many of them
interoperable, to the extent that I can reliably process them to useable display formats
using unchanged stylesheets.
> , and I likewise acknowledge that even relatively more
> interoperable markup languages such as HTML still suffer greatly from
> differing interpretations by software
and from very abusive users!
The alternatives to TEI seem to be:
- word-processors, presentation-based hangovers from the typewriter age, implemented with XML that
makes the claimed clunkiness of TEI look smooth as whipped cream
- MadMen sui generis markup like LaTeX, combining markup and implementation
- HTML, where the infighting makes the TEI seem like a toddlers tea party, enhanced with semantic
data using RDFa/microdata/younameit in ways that make my bones ache as if I had a dose of malaria
- PDF, extracting data from which is like reconstructing a cow from a plate of spaghetti bolognese
- standoff interpretation in RDF (or Excel or a database) - which actually works, but doesn't help anyone else
- prescriptive markup (eg Docbook) which lacks the facilities of TEI
('scuse metaphors and similes)
So my preference is to market Strict TEI, a prescriptive version of the scheme for the 95% brigade.
I suspect thats what PD and MM are going for too.
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