Print

Print


Hello guys,
I think you're both (well, Lou and Sebastian on one side, Martin, Peter 
and more on the other one ;) right, but you got to put things in context:

- on the PR point of view, saying that a TEI P4 document is not strictly 
speaking a valid TEI document strikes me as aiming at our own foot with 
painstaking precision, then shooting repeatedly. The message that should 
be conveyed is that
   a) of course TEI P4 documents are TEI documents, but
   b) they will continue to be useful and used only for as long the 
necessary technologies will continue work, which is why
   c) you're *strongly* encouraged 1. not to use versions different from 
the current standard for new projects, and 2. to migrate existing 
documents to the current version (unless you've particular needs, your 
setup is simple and going to last forever, etc.); a particular accent 
should go on the fact that, even if TEI XML is going to last forever, 
the required XML tools to make use of it may not, and that's not TEI 
responsibility;

- on the technical point of view, I would be wary of a site collecting 
"TEI samples" and mixing up all sort of stuff: different versions of the 
schemas, documents missing the needed schema, etc. I'm all set to do my 
own microwaving if necessary, but at the very least you (an hypothetical 
you, not singling out anybody here) should make clear which documents 
follow the *current* TEI version, which ones don't, which ones are 
usable out of the box etc., so that less experienced users can 
understand what to pick and use on the basis of their needs.

My 0,02€ as usual.

R

Il 22/11/2013 10:41, Lou Burnard ha scritto:
> 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
>


-- 

Roberto Rosselli Del Turco      roberto.rossellidelturco at unito.it
Dipartimento di Studi           rosselli at ling.unipi.it
Umanistici                      Then spoke the thunder  DA
Universita' di Torino           Datta: what have we given?  (TSE)

  Hige sceal the heardra,     heorte the cenre,
  mod sceal the mare,       the ure maegen litlath.  (Maldon 312-3)