Print

Print


Given  the way the technical landscape has changed,  we would not win 
many friends by  recommending people to use the same technologies as 
they did 20 years ago. There is nothing wrong with using TEI P4 and 
associated technologies if you want to, though they are (and will become 
increasingly) hard to find.  For that reason, if for no other, the TEI 
announced that it would be withdrawing support for P4 well over three 
yours ago, and actually did so last November. Hence Sebastian's point 
that a TEI P4 document is not strictly speaking a TEI document. And, at 
the risk of further confusing the confusible hogs of whom Martin Mueller 
speaks, may I reiterate that the very notion of "TEI conformance" did 
not enter into the TEI world view until publication of TEI P5.  As 
Sebastian also notes, conversion tools for P4 documents are available, 
and have been for some time. The conversion process is also a LOT 
simpler than it was the last time we had this discussion, when  we went 
from P3 to P4.


  On 22/11/13 09:00, Peter Boot wrote:
> I would say that from a PR point of view this is an undesirable position. We can't on the one hand argue that people should use TEI to be prepared for changes in the technology landscape and on the other hand relegate their documents to the dustbin of history if some changes actually happen.
>
> The idea that only those documents that are technically TEI P5 conformant can count as TEI documents seems very restrictive to me.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Van: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [[log in to unmask]] namens Lou Burnard [[log in to unmask]]
> Verzonden: donderdag 21 november 2013 23:15
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: [TEI-L] TEI Examples
>
> The concept of "valid TEI document" was defined in TEI P5. P4 documents, though certainly "TEI" in some rather vague sense, cannot be considered valid by that definition.
>
> They do of course remain valid TEI P4 documents -- except that I don't think there's any definition in TEI P4 of what exactly that might mean.
>
> What's disappointing about that?
>
>
> On 21/11/13 22:10, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
> Is it your contention that all valid P4 TEI  documents became 'not TEI' overnight when P5 was released? That all documents that were once valid against the then-standard but are not valid against the current standard are 'not TEI' ?
>
> I would be disappointed to see this being adopted as an official position.
>
> cheers
> stuart