Amanda wrote:

> Thanks very much for your response. Your interest in a standoff system
> that separates a fairly orthodox edited text (however the project 
> defines that) from annotations/interpretive files meshes with long-term
> goals for some projects here. Have you considered taking this one step
> further and even removing the editorial markup to its own file? In the
> case of a Spenser edition we're working on, two competing editorial 
> interests in the texts (literary/logical and physical bibliographic) 
> seem to demand that a proper standoff system would involve a clean 
> transcription as the base file to avoid competing hierarchies. Not all
> editions are interested in noting both of these views of a text, and so
> could, of course, include the editorial markup in the base file. But 
> that would from the outset require that future standoff files not 
> hierarchically conflict with whatever the base file's annotations say 
> about the text. Is that a problem for you, or do you view that as an 
> edition's prerogative?

Just to note that a few of us are taking the first steps to develop an
open standard annotation format. I first wrote about this to the
TeleRead blog last year:

followed by the even more global:

Ben Trafford is working on a preliminary first proposal for the
annotation format (which could greatly change as more people provide
input), with plans for possibly introducing it to the IDPF or OASIS.

Of course, if anyone on TEI-L has *any* interest in being involved in
working on this standard, let me know in private email.


Jon Noring