LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  December 2012

TEI-L December 2012

Subject:

Re: managing changes in the teitoX tools and the stylesheets.

From:

Wendell Piez <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Wendell Piez <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:33:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

Dear Louis,

Respectfully, I do not think there is a problem here. Or if there is,
it is a natural, normal and predictable problem that has no solution.
But it can be managed, and indeed you appear to managing it well.

Understand that I write with no authority at all. I haven't been
assigned to any committees or councils. My position is only my
accustomed role as "TEI gadfly".

As I see it, your point can be restated as a problem of specification
and validation. As you know, this is a vexed area; indeed, the TEI
Guidelines stipulate that it is not even always possible to determine
whether a given XML instance is "TEI conformable" (meaning, as I
understand it, that a TEI-conformant ODD for it is mathematically
possible even if none has been written). The problem stems from your
implicit acceptance that specifications assumed by the current version
of the public stylesheets are in some way normative -- that if your
data doesn't work correctly with them, it is somehow the data that is
in error. Problems are never due to the new processing (on the
contrary, "bugs" have been "fixed"); and processing always reflects
deliberate policy decisions on the part of the TEI, rather than simply
an evolution in the interpretation of TEI by its diligent authors.

This may be a defensible position (at least intellectually) but I'm
not sure it's one the TEI takes. On the contrary, at least some of us
have assumed for a long time that you can have conformant and correct
TEI documents that don't work perfectly nicely in the public
stylesheets at all, and their conformance is ensured and validated by
other means. Among other things, this means that TEI projects are not
bound to the treadmill you describe, whereon every improvement to the
public stylesheets potentially destabilizes your work.

It does have to be admitted, however, that such a view does bear on
perennial questions regarding the interoperability of TEI systems and
interchange of TEI documents, as it implies that such interoperability
is not the primary goal, or in some cases even an important one, of
all this work in aligning our practices with one another. My own view
on this is that interoperability and interchange are not simply
either/or -- that one can have (and be rewarded by) a significant
degree of what could be called "soft interoperability" even when data
interchange is not perfect (what has been called "blind interchange")
-- and even that such an 80% amounts to civil society, when 100% would
be an intolerable (and unsustainable) tyranny. But apparently such a
view is too nuanced to gain much currency, even while most of us work
in ways that more or less assume it.

Nevertheless I submit that your own discomfort might be relieved a
little by knowing that (1) it is not at all universally accepted that
all conformant TEI data must always work well or even at all with the
public stylesheets, and (2) that if you decide to use them, your
policy of periodic "freezes" at stable points seems (to me at least)
to be prudent and exactly right.

Cheers,
Wendell



On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Louis-Dominique Dubeau
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 19:39 +0000, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> It's maybe worth people knowing that these stylesheets are managed with a test suite
>> of documents, and that the release/build process checks that the results do not come out
>> differently. So when the generated HTML is different in any way, the build breaks
>> and I have to check by hand.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you and I are not talking about quite the
> same thing. What you are talking about is protection against *unwanted
> changes*. What I'm talking about is change that is *wanted*, because it
> fixes a bug.
>
> In some cases it happens that the old release worked fine for Alice.
> That it worked well for Alice was due to a bug, but she did not know
> that. Then Bob puts in a bug report. The code is fixed and released,
> Alice reprocesses and now it no longer looks good.
>
> Again, I can point to our most recent back and forth re teitohtml as a
> case in point. I had a file that processed correctly but it no longer
> does. I did make a mistake by not specifying that I capture all
> quotation marks. Still, the old release did exactly what I wanted. The
> new release however requires me to go back to my TEI and fix it so that
> I get the right output. Not a big deal in this specific case, but in
> other cases this can mean hours of work.
>
> Or consider structural changes like the following. This is a diff from
> the output of teitohtml as of the latest release to the output of
> teitohtml as of a recent update of the svn trunk, same valid TEI input
> in both cases:
>
> 23c23
> <       <div class="p">Blah <span class="quote_inline">bluh</span>.</div>
> ---
>>       <p>Blah <span class="quote">&#x2018;bluh&#x2019;</span>.</p>
>
> If I used to have a CSS selector match on quote_inline, then the next
> release will break that. (I presume that the rationale now is that <span
> class="quote"> is an inline quote and <blockquote> is a display quote.
> So there is no need to have a "quote_inline" class.) What used to be
> <div class="p"> is now <p>, which could also throw off CSS or perhaps
> processing of the resulting HTML. (Although given that <div class="p">
> should have already been treated like <p>, this is less likely to result
> in a problem.)
>
> Now, let us consider a document being edited over the span of weeks,
> months, or years. TEI releases are going to happen during that span of
> time. Bugs are going to be fixed, and the chance of something being
> changed which will have a unexpected effect (unexpected from the point
> of view of a user) on the output of teitoX is not unlikely.
>
> All the discussion above centered on changes to the output. Changes to
> the internal design of the XSL code are also problematic to those (like
> me) who create new profiles adapted to their own needs. I recall the
> structure of the LaTeX templates that are called at the beginning of
> processing being changed at least once in a way that required me to
> update my customizations. And I also recall some of the LaTeX
> hyperlinking code gaining one additional parameter being passed around
> by the chain of templates that do the hyperlinking processing.
>
>> So while the scenario of "my document is all broke, aargh" will obviously
>> occur sometimes, I hope its far from common.
>
> It causes me headaches from time to time. I've decided that the proper
> response is not to scream "OMG! Roll back the changes!" but to
> proactively protect myself from surprises at inopportune moments. In my
> case, this means freezing the TEI tree from time to time. To take
> another example, if I were a publishing outfit using any of the teitoX
> tools to publish documents that are considered for the most part frozen
> at the time of publication, then upon publication of the document, I'd
> store the document's source files together with a frozen TEI tree so
> that if 2 years down the road there is a desire to produce a slightly
> updated version (e.g. slightly edited to remove typos and things of the
> sort), then I would not have to deal with the changes that happened to
> the TEI code base in the intervening 2 years. I'd fix the typos,
> reprocess the XML using the frozen tree, proofread, and call it a day.
> If I did *not* do this, I would run into changes to the TEI code base
> that would require me to fix my source files or my customizations.
>
>> As Louis will testify, I do try and respond to bug reports very quickly,
>> so don't feel shy about reporting a disaster.
>
> I do testify to that, and I appreciate it.
>
> Cheers,
> Louis



-- 
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager