Print

Print


Ooops, my apologies. The notion of TEI conformance was in fact present 
in TEI P4, and indeed there is  a chapter (28) on the subject, which 
goes into some considerable technical detail. (e.g. don't use SHORTREF) 
It elaborates a distinction between a format for "local processing" and 
for "interchange purposes", which in the age of the web looks a bit 
antiquated, but is still basically saying "what you do in the privacy of 
your own cpu is up to but once you start strutting your stuff in public, 
there are some rules and conventions you need to follow".  In fact most 
of its specific technical recommendations have been carried forward into 
those provided in the TEI P5 conformance definition, but with technical 
evolution (notably namespaces and Unicode, neither of which was 
available when P4 was defined,) and of course the idea of validation 
against "TEI All", it becomes possible automatically to validate TEI 
conformance, which was not possible before.


On 22/11/13 09:41, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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