Dear Sebastian,

On 8/23/2011 4:01 PM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> There are other approaches to that 20% problem. One I like is that
> you define your ODD which adds the new "module", with all your own
> lovely elements making the textual distinctions you adore. But in
> your ODD you also define the mapping from them to 80%TEI, so that
> anyone can derive a standardized/bastardized/emasculated version from
> your document with a documented and stable process. This avoids those
> multiple namespaces in the original XML, and avoids the problem of
> the stylesheet developer not knowing whether to ignore the foreign
> elements, or just take their text content.

That's a reasonable approach, if you're willing to give up on the
promise of blind interchange. Since personally I think that promise has
been oversold, I can live with that.

But it doesn't provide a way forward for those who (like Martin and
Doug) regard that failure as a real failure.

> The "when overlap markup comes..." argument reminds me of the
> fearsome "AI technologies" which are going to be with us "any year
> now", starting in c. 1975.

I can see why you say that. :-) The real difference I see is that if we
ever do see robust models for overlap and MCH, we'll be creating more
problems than we solve. The real work will only just be starting then.

Oh, okay, you're right, that's not a difference.

(Though FWIW I don't think I've over-promised technologies for overlap,
even the initiatives I've worked on, and even if others have. But I have
been seeing progress lately.)


Wendell Piez                            mailto:[log in to unmask]
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.      
17 West Jefferson Street                    Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207                                          Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD  20850                                 Fax: 301/315-8285
   Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML