Just noting that I have added (my take at) the remarks that have been
shared recently and hopefully made it easier to argue individual points
by hard-setting their numbers. There is a section in the article where
discussion can be had. Naturally, this is a wiki, so anyone is welcome
to edit the page.
On 09/07/16 23:21, Martin Holmes wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> On 2016-07-09 12:54 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:
>> Free is always better in some ways, and it’s certainly cheaper. But
>> let’s not forget that the cost of oXygen for a student is no more,
>> and indeed less, than the cost of a textbook in Economics or Biology.
>> You get what you pay for, and with oXygen the value for money is
>> pretty good. Arguably better than for Economics textbooks, where you
>> have to ask whether for the purposes of introducing the principles of
>> Economics the latest copy of Mankiw, Krugman, or whoever really does
>> more than a dog-eared copy of Samuelson’s first edition.
> When a student lays out $99 on a textbook, they usually get to recoup at
> least 60% of it by selling on the textbook when they no longer need it;
> or they can purchase a textbook second- or third-hand and save
> substantially on the cost. When they purchase an academic software
> license, they can't resell it, nor can they purchase a second-hand copy.
> But over and above the buy-in cost, I think most of us are considering
> that a scenario in which it's easy and cost-free to run XML encoding
> courses with Oxygen will not only make our lives much easier, but in the
> end produce larger numbers of more enthusiastic encoders, many of whom
> will go on to be regular Oxygen customers. That would be a win for
>> On 7/9/16, 2:09 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion
>> list on behalf of Martin Holmes" <[log in to unmask] on behalf
>> of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Hugh,
>> On 2016-07-09 12:51 AM, Hugh Cayless wrote:
>>> Syntax highlighting is one of those things where (at least if
>>> you're doing it right) it's trivial to add new languages once you
>>> have one or two. The feature itself may be hard to implement, but a
>>> new language just means adding a grammar for that language and a
>>> mapping of tokens to styles/colors.
>> Yes, I've done it myself a few times. But we were looking at ideas
>> for things that could be removed from the standard version of Oxygen
>> without negatively affecting its use for teaching XML encoding, but
>> which would leave that version inadequate for serious use, so that
>> hopefully the Oxygen team would feel confident that such a version
>> wouldn't undermine their sales. Blocking the availability of syntax
>> highlighting for non-XML languages seems like an obvious one.
>>> There was an effort a few years back to build a web-based TEI
>>> editor, but I believe it got thwarted by unforseen (and, to be
>>> fair, unforseeable) personnel changes. There have been tremendous
>>> advances in web scripting capabilities since then, so perhaps it
>>> would be worth revisiting. Or, failing that, perhaps some
>>> investment in developing plugins to make jEdit more usable with
>>> TEI? I haven't used it in about a decade, but I don't remember its
>>> plugin architecture being all that hard to work with...
>> I think the dearth of really good web-based editors of any kind is
>> an indication that this is really not a simple task at all; it may be
>> much more practical than it used to be, but I doubt it's easy.
>> Actually, there's a shortage of really good XML editors of any kind
>> at all. That's why Oxygen is so precious.
>> Cheers, Martin
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> Hi Piotr,
>>> I hadn't intended to exclude syntax highlighting for XML/XSLT,
>>> just for other languages such as CSS or JS. We surely need it for
>>> Cheers, Martin
>>> On 2016-07-08 03:58 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> I've summarized this sub-thread at
> (and I admit to some modifications of the original listing, notably
>>> mentioning syntax highlighting, which seems on the one hand
>>> absolutely helpful for new (and old) users of XML, and on the other
>>> is relatively cheap to implement)
>>> Best regards,
>>> On 08/07/16 00:45, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>> Hey, we're getting somewhere... When thinking of features IN, I
>>> also thought that some of us, when they hear "XSLT?", reply with
>>> "XQuery!", but Saxon HE could handle both, so no problem there.
>>> On 07/07/16 23:51, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>> I think it would be helpful also to agree on a list of things that
>>> _wouldn't_ be needed for a teaching edition.
>>> One simple line that could be drawn across the feature set would be
>>> that none of the commercial tools (Saxon PE, Saxon EE) would be
>>> available; that means no XSLT 3, for instance.
>>> I don't think you'd need the XSLT or XQuery debuggers; nor would
>>> you need the database connectivity.
>>> The SVN client, the Tree Editor, and the Compare Files/Directories
>>> tools could also be removed.
>>> Similarly, syntax highlighting and editing support for some file
>>> JSON, etc.).
>>> In this way you'd arrive at something which would be utterly
>>> useless for the likes of me, and quite frustrating for serious
>>> users, but perfectly functional for teaching introductory XML
>>> encoding classes over a few months.
>>> Cheers, Martin
>>> On 2016-07-07 02:28 PM, Pierazzo, Elena wrote:
>>> Hi Piotr,
>>> While we all know that these brilliant guys have to earn their
>>> bread somehow, and so can't just spread freebies around, I wonder
>>> how realistic it would be to put together a list of features for a
>>> dumbed-down teaching version of oXygen. I am somewhat afraid that
>>> it's not too realistic, because course profiles naturally vary
>>> depending on the exact content and the level of the audience, and
>>> maintaining a new version might incur new costs.
>>> I was thinking along the same lines, actually… and having your
>>> same reluctancies (great minds…).
>>> Still, I spent a while writing and rewriting the previous
>>> sentence, and cutting some parts of it, exactly because I can
>>> imagine counterarguments to what I say above. Maybe it would be
>>> worth our while to *try* to put together a list of features that
>>> we'd like to have in such an editor, just to see if we could agree
>>> on a single set of such features -- because if not, then we already
>>> could see why there's no point in asking George and Co. for that.
>>> I have actually already discussed things a bit with George. I have
>>> been teaching XML and TEI for about 15 years now (yes, I’m that
>>> old) and when you teach to absolute beginners what is an element
>>> and why the TEI is such a good idea, it is hard to ask them to
>>> commit to buy an editor because they do not yet know if they going
>>> to like working with the TEI or not. Furthermore, a 30 days trials
>>> is not enough: before putting int $100, people would like to make
>>> sure that that will constitute a good return. In my discussion
>>> with George, he seemed partial to the idea that if someone is
>>> organising a TEI-flavoured training and is a TEI member, they could
>>> be able to offer a 2/3 months trial, which is incredibly generous
>>> of theirs, and I think it could solve some of our issues, but not
>>> all, not mine anyway. My problem, and Roberto's I think, is that we
>>> are talking about courses within a university degree that on the
>>> one hand tend to last longer than 30 days (or 60 days) and on the
>>> other, in case of newly established realities or tight budgets,
>>> they require us to convince our administrators that to pay $1k for
>>> a class or a site licence is a good investment, which in many cases
>>> is not the easiest thing to do.
>>> And if we _could_ agree on a single feature set, then the ball
>>> would move into the hands of Syncro Soft profilers, and they would
>>> simply have to check if they see reasonable benefit there. After
>>> all, the benefit would come not only from selling the teaching
>>> licenses but also from the fact that students would use oXygen
>>> during their training, and that is something that some might choose
>>> not to ignore in their long-range calculations. Lots of question
>>> marks there, but an agreed feature set comes first, as a
>>> precondition to further speculations or calculations. And Elena has
>>> just given us a seed for such a feature set.
>>> In my experience of teaching, the features I absolutely need are:
>>> - multiplatform - validation with Relax NG - contextual
>>> suggestions - XSLT 2 transformation - easy to use - free
>>> Desirable are:
>>> - xPath query - Inline documentation (i.e. the little pop-ups with
>>> the definition of the element) - pre-set templates
>>> All other features are, in my opinion, for people that ha decided
>>> that the TEI is a good thing and wants that for their work. In
>>> these case, I think expecting them to buy the software is
>>> reasonable. I like to remember how oXygen was the first software I
>>> ever bought with my own money.