Perhaps I'm just a grey-beard (hard to think of myself that way), but
I could scarcely disagree more. The TEI is an encoding specification.
It is not, and should not be, the TEI's job to build implementations
(although it has done that at times) nor to search the world over to
find others' implementations. Besides, I think Sebastian's
terminological quandary is a pretty big, serious one.
The TEI should not shy away from recommendations just because there is
no current implementation. (Although we should try to shy away from
that which would be very hard or impossible to implement.) And allow me
to earn my grey-beard cred by reminding that when the TEI started,
there were *no* implementations of *anything* for a long time.
Another example: where would the world be if TEI didn't develop and
publish the extended pointer syntax? To my knowledge it was rarely
used and never implemented. But it is the foundation of XPath.
And I don't think the TEI is any danger of becoming a cul de sac at
all. (That said, I do worry that <cRefPattern> itself will become
exactly that. Which is a bit surprising, I think, as I think it is
potentially quite useful and can't be *that* hard to implement, can
> You're welcome to recast the note without term you find offensive,
> but neglecting to warn newbie users of serious issues just because
> the grey-beards have a terminological quandary is asking for TEI to
> become a cul de sac.