Print

Print


Hi Martin,

On 2016-07-09 12:54 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:
> Free is always better in some ways, and it’s certainly  cheaper. But
> let’s not forget that the cost of oXygen for a student is no more,
> and indeed less, than the cost of a textbook in Economics or Biology.
> You get what you pay for, and with oXygen the value for money is
> pretty good. Arguably better than for Economics textbooks, where you
> have to ask whether for the purposes of introducing the principles of
> Economics the latest copy of Mankiw, Krugman, or whoever really does
> more than a dog-eared copy of Samuelson’s first edition.

When a student lays out $99 on a textbook, they usually get to recoup at 
least 60% of it by selling on the textbook when they no longer need it; 
or they can purchase a textbook second- or third-hand and save 
substantially on the cost. When they purchase an academic software 
license, they can't resell it, nor can they purchase a second-hand copy.

But over and above the buy-in cost, I think most of us are considering 
that a scenario in which it's easy and cost-free to run XML encoding 
courses with Oxygen will not only make our lives much easier, but in the 
end produce larger numbers of more enthusiastic encoders, many of whom 
will go on to be regular Oxygen customers. That would be a win for everyone.

Cheers,
Martin

> On 7/9/16, 2:09 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion
> list on behalf of Martin Holmes" <[log in to unmask] on behalf
> of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> On 2016-07-09 12:51 AM, Hugh Cayless wrote:
>> Syntax highlighting is one of those things where (at least if
>> you're doing it right) it's trivial to add new languages once you
>> have one or two. The feature itself may be hard to implement, but a
>> new language just means adding a grammar for that language and a
>> mapping of tokens to styles/colors.
>
> Yes, I've done it myself a few times. But we were looking at ideas
> for things that could be removed from the standard version of Oxygen
> without negatively affecting its use for teaching XML encoding, but
> which would leave that version inadequate for serious use, so that
> hopefully the Oxygen team would feel confident that such a version
> wouldn't undermine their sales. Blocking the availability of syntax
> highlighting for non-XML languages seems like an obvious one.
>
>> There was an effort a few years back to build a web-based TEI
>> editor, but I believe it got thwarted by unforseen (and, to be
>> fair, unforseeable) personnel changes. There have been tremendous
>> advances in web scripting capabilities since then, so perhaps it
>> would be worth revisiting. Or, failing that, perhaps some
>> investment in developing plugins to make jEdit more usable with
>> TEI? I haven't used it in about a decade, but I don't remember its
>> plugin architecture being all that hard to work with...
>
> I think the dearth of really good web-based editors of any kind is
> an indication that this is really not a simple task at all; it may be
> much more practical than it used to be, but I doubt it's easy.
>
> Actually, there's a shortage of really good XML editors of any kind
> at all. That's why Oxygen is so precious.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>> Hugh
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> I hadn't intended to exclude syntax highlighting for XML/XSLT,
>> just for other languages such as CSS or JS. We surely need it for
>> XML.
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>> On 2016-07-08 03:58 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I've summarized this sub-thread at
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tei-2Dc.org_index.php_Editor-5Ffor-5Fteaching-5FTEI-5F-2D-5Ffeatures&d=CwIFaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=f7cBFtDvP8n91DThMrDrnlBkyW60e1tq8G56vv5glD4&s=dbNOK_fZQfVEOXNKmK-ruJBukoenD-u-GyYvLmtsBY4&e=
>>
>>
>>
(and I admit to some modifications of the original listing, notably
>> mentioning syntax highlighting, which seems on the one hand
>> absolutely helpful for new (and old) users of XML, and on the other
>> is relatively cheap to implement)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Piotr
>>
>>
>> On 08/07/16 00:45, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>
>> Hey, we're getting somewhere... When thinking of features IN, I
>> also thought that some of us, when they hear "XSLT?", reply with
>> "XQuery!", but Saxon HE could handle both, so no problem there.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> P.
>>
>> On 07/07/16 23:51, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>
>> I think it would be helpful also to agree on a list of things that
>> _wouldn't_ be needed for a teaching edition.
>>
>> One simple line that could be drawn across the feature set would be
>> that none of the commercial tools (Saxon PE, Saxon EE) would be
>> available; that means no XSLT 3, for instance.
>>
>> I don't think you'd need the XSLT or XQuery debuggers; nor would
>> you need the database connectivity.
>>
>> The SVN client, the Tree Editor, and the Compare Files/Directories
>> tools could also be removed.
>>
>> Similarly, syntax highlighting and editing support for some file
>> types which are not XML-based could be removed (JavaScript, CSS,
>> JSON, etc.).
>>
>> In this way you'd arrive at something which would be utterly
>> useless for the likes of me, and quite frustrating for serious
>> users, but perfectly functional for teaching introductory XML
>> encoding classes over a few months.
>>
>> Cheers, Martin
>>
>> On 2016-07-07 02:28 PM, Pierazzo, Elena wrote:
>>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> While we all know that these brilliant guys have to earn their
>> bread somehow, and so can't just spread freebies around, I wonder
>> how realistic it would be to put together a list of features for a
>> dumbed-down teaching version of oXygen. I am somewhat afraid that
>> it's not too realistic, because course profiles naturally vary
>> depending on the exact content and the level of the audience, and
>> maintaining a new version might incur new costs.
>>
>>
>> I was thinking along the same lines, actually… and having your
>> same reluctancies (great minds…).
>>
>>
>> Still, I spent a while writing and rewriting the previous
>> sentence, and cutting some parts of it, exactly because I can
>> imagine counterarguments to what I say above. Maybe it would be
>> worth our while to *try* to put together a list of features that
>> we'd like to have in such an editor, just to see if we could agree
>> on a single set of such features -- because if not, then we already
>> could see why there's no point in asking George and Co. for that.
>>
>> I have actually already discussed things a bit with George. I have
>> been teaching XML and TEI for about 15 years now (yes, I’m that
>> old) and when you teach to absolute beginners what is an element
>> and why the TEI is such a good idea, it is hard to ask them to
>> commit to buy an editor because they do not yet know if they going
>> to like working with the TEI or not. Furthermore, a 30 days trials
>> is not enough: before putting int $100, people would like to make
>> sure that that will constitute a good return. In my discussion
>> with George, he seemed partial to the idea that if someone is
>> organising a TEI-flavoured training and is a TEI member, they could
>> be able to offer a 2/3 months trial, which is incredibly generous
>> of theirs, and I think it could solve some of our issues, but not
>> all, not mine anyway. My problem, and Roberto's I think, is that we
>> are talking about courses within a university degree that on the
>> one hand tend to last longer than 30 days (or 60 days) and on the
>> other, in case of newly established realities or tight budgets,
>> they require us to convince our administrators that to pay $1k for
>> a class or a site licence is a good investment, which in many cases
>> is not the easiest thing to do.
>>
>>
>> And if we _could_ agree on a single feature set, then the ball
>> would move into the hands of Syncro Soft profilers, and they would
>> simply have to check if they see reasonable benefit there. After
>> all, the benefit would come not only from selling the teaching
>> licenses but also from the fact that students would use oXygen
>> during their training, and that is something that some might choose
>> not to ignore in their long-range calculations. Lots of question
>> marks there, but an agreed feature set comes first, as a
>> precondition to further speculations or calculations. And Elena has
>> just given us a seed for such a feature set.
>>
>>
>> In my experience of teaching, the features I absolutely need are:
>>
>> - multiplatform - validation with Relax NG - contextual
>> suggestions - XSLT 2 transformation - easy to use - free
>>
>> Desirable are:
>>
>> - xPath query - Inline documentation (i.e. the little pop-ups with
>> the definition of the element) - pre-set templates
>>
>> All other features are, in my opinion, for people that ha decided
>> that the TEI is a good thing and wants that for their work. In
>> these case, I think expecting them to buy the software is
>> reasonable. I like to remember how oXygen was the first software I
>> ever bought with my own money.
>>
>> Elena
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>