On Wed, Oct 31 2018, Patrick Sahle wrote:
> I don't see how CTE versus oXygen may be a question of money. It is a
> question of scholarly method and paradigm. You will never get the same
> TEI as an CTE export that you would produce with oXygen - except for
> the close to unimaginable case where you conceive your whole editorial
> work exclusively in terms of a traditional (to be) printed edition.
> And while we as a public reasearch institution never spend much money
> on software, in our minds we consider oXygen as being something like
> "free" as it costs next to nothing.
This is one aspect of “free”. The other is important to consider, too:
oXygen, though not free software itself, usually writes/reads a simple
text file that contains an XML document.
CTE is not free software either, but in addition it uses a proprietary
format for the files it produces (last time I checked, ca. a year ago).
That means that what you input will be readable only by CTE, and you’ll
not be able to inspect CTE for how it works or the produced file for any
further processing independently of CTE. This assumes that CTE cannot
export all the information that you have entered.
That said, if your primary purpose is to produce a printed edition, and
the TEI XML document is only an afterthought, CTE is very powerful and a
useful tool to get things done. If you see your TEI documents as a
primary result, then I agree with others here that you should choose an
editor that can edit XML documents, and TEI in particular. If you want
to keep your research free not only as to its results and sources, but
also as to its tools, then you should probably avoid both oXygen and
long-term email: [log in to unmask]