I think there's at least two lines of thinking in this thread, and they
are made to clash by forcing them onto a single rail.
I don't think that anyone surprised by the claim that "TEI is TEI P5" is
suggesting that the TEI-C actually recommend TEI P4 to newcomers. They
appear to be saying that it might be quite a sensible PR move to admit
that "TEI P5 is TEI" as well as "TEI P4 is TEI" (you know, the direction
of the arrow, or of the "includes" operator), and possibly qualify the
first statement to make it say as little more as, e.g. "supported TEI is
There's just a lot of hidden premises in the exchange in this thread so
far, and it will help to tease them out and see that there may be no
disagreement, after all, and it's all a matter of phrasing, to make
these statements clear for both the newcomers and the technicians.
On 11/22/2013 10:41 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Given the way the technical landscape has changed, we would not win
> many friends by recommending people to use the same technologies as
> they did 20 years ago. There is nothing wrong with using TEI P4 and
> associated technologies if you want to, though they are (and will become
> increasingly) hard to find. For that reason, if for no other, the TEI
> announced that it would be withdrawing support for P4 well over three
> yours ago, and actually did so last November. Hence Sebastian's point
> that a TEI P4 document is not strictly speaking a TEI document. And, at
> the risk of further confusing the confusible hogs of whom Martin Mueller
> speaks, may I reiterate that the very notion of "TEI conformance" did
> not enter into the TEI world view until publication of TEI P5. As
> Sebastian also notes, conversion tools for P4 documents are available,
> and have been for some time. The conversion process is also a LOT
> simpler than it was the last time we had this discussion, when we went
> from P3 to P4.
> On 22/11/13 09:00, Peter Boot wrote:
>> I would say that from a PR point of view this is an undesirable
>> position. We can't on the one hand argue that people should use TEI to
>> be prepared for changes in the technology landscape and on the other
>> hand relegate their documents to the dustbin of history if some
>> changes actually happen.
>> The idea that only those documents that are technically TEI P5
>> conformant can count as TEI documents seems very restrictive to me.
>> Van: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>> [[log in to unmask]] namens Lou Burnard
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 23:15
>> Aan: [log in to unmask]
>> Onderwerp: Re: [TEI-L] TEI Examples
>> The concept of "valid TEI document" was defined in TEI P5. P4
>> documents, though certainly "TEI" in some rather vague sense, cannot
>> be considered valid by that definition.
>> They do of course remain valid TEI P4 documents -- except that I don't
>> think there's any definition in TEI P4 of what exactly that might mean.
>> What's disappointing about that?
>> On 21/11/13 22:10, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
>> Is it your contention that all valid P4 TEI documents became 'not
>> TEI' overnight when P5 was released? That all documents that were once
>> valid against the then-standard but are not valid against the current
>> standard are 'not TEI' ?
>> I would be disappointed to see this being adopted as an official