On 22 Nov 2013, at 09:00, Peter Boot <[log in to unmask]> 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. 

I don’t see that we have much choice. Are TEI P3 SGML documents also “TEI”? yes, of course they are in most ways, but in practice they
are useless to most people, as the software for processing SGML is understood by (relatively) few people.  

_if_ we present a catalogue of TEI documents to folks saying “look, this is how other people encode things, you
might  get some ideas”, _then_ we must clearly indicate which version of the TEI they conform to. if we just say
“TEI”, then that _has_ to mean P5, surely?

I am possibly coming over in this thread as being mean and snarky, and criticising Stuart’s work in assembling this
list, but I hope not. The list is an excellent resource, a snapshot of whats out in the world under the TEI banner.
Now lets look at what that means.

I am amusing myself now by writing a more generic "TEI Batcomputer” to create a useful report on the contents of
The Yeates List, which I’ll share when I am done