On 22 Nov 2013, at 10:08, Roberto Rosselli Del Turco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think you're both (well, Lou and Sebastian on one side, Martin, Peter and more on the other one ;) right, but you got to put things in context:
> - on the PR point of view, saying that a TEI P4 document is not strictly speaking a valid TEI document strikes me as aiming at our own foot with painstaking precision, then shooting repeatedly. The message that should be conveyed is that
> a) of course TEI P4 documents are TEI documents, but
> b) they will continue to be useful and used only for as long the necessary technologies will continue work, which is why
> c) you're *strongly* encouraged 1. not to use versions different from the current standard for new projects, and 2. to migrate existing documents to the current version (unless you've particular needs, your setup is simple and going to last forever, etc.); a particular accent should go on the fact that, even if TEI XML is going to last forever, the required XML tools to make use of it may not, and that's not TEI responsibility;
I am sure we all agree on that, if you use “TEI” to mean “talks TEI language and follows the abstract model, more or less”.
There’s a more restricted meaning of “TEI”, which means “is valid against the current version of the schema”, and of course
we sometimes means one sort of TEI and sometimes the other.
i don’t think we’re really on opposing sides here.
but I _am_ agreeing with Martin M’s assertion that we (all of TEI Land) don’t present an entirely
convincing facade to the outside world :-}
Director (Research) of Academic IT
University of Oxford IT Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431