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 types
> 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
> 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
Piotr Bański, Ph.D.
Institut für Deutsche Sprache,
68-161 Mannheim, Germany