Print

Print


I'm not opposed to detailed, project-specific markup as long as the
results of the transposition (or "emasculation" if you like, although
that seems a fraught metaphor) are what we generally think of as TEI
(making this "dumb" markup the module-less "core" is fine).  I'm not
looking for perfection here, either, but just something at least as
usable by software designers as HTML.  And interoperability must be a
*goal*, however unobtainable.

It may be a limit of my own imagination, but I have never been able to
think of using XML as a locus for critical rhetoric as anything other
than a parody of our field resembling what I'm sure some think of when
they first hear the term "Digital Humanities."

Doug


On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Sebastian Rahtz
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2011, at 23:22, Wendell Piez wrote:
>> a way I expect it to be processed. But presumably the TEI Consortium
>> could refuse me the use of namespace
>> "http://tei-c.org/ns/experimental/wendell2011a" until I demonstrated the
>> utility and suitability of my nifty new tag set for others (maybe
>> meeting a two-implementation requirement?), documented it to its
>> standards with worked examples, and offered a dumbing-down
>> transformation into 80% TEI to accommodate anyone who didn't want to
>> support the tagging natively.
>
>
> I think there is a lot of merit in the development of best practice in this area;
> I think the respectable projects which seriously customize the TEI do
> exactly this already.
>
> My only requestion is that your dumbing-down algorithm is embedded in/linked to
> your ODD  - in the ways which are not yet well-understood or used :-}
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Head of Information and Support Group, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>