Hi Serge,

If you want an open-source editor, then presumably you're talking about 
creating a new editor from scratch, or extending an existing open-source 
one. I must admit I've been thinking along the lines of a special 
teaching version of Oxygen; since all our projects make heavy use of 
Oxygen, teaching people with something substantially different would be 
rather counter-productive.

Along the same lines, this bit from the wiki page:

"Item 1.7. could imply a very moderate bulk licensing fee paid by the 
institution that provides training; we have to bear in mind that the 
entire discussion started because of a department refusing to pay 
regular licensing fees (deemed as too high) for a course that lasts a 

I think we need to aim for a free version. It's not just the issue of 
the scale of the financial barrier; in many cases, system administrators 
have to be involved to roll out special builds of software and manage 
licenses for software which needs to be licensed, and that in itself is 
a barrier to (for example) rapid deployment for a course which is 
opportunistically arranged at short notice.


On 2016-07-10 05:08 AM, Serge Heiden wrote:
> Hi Piotr,
> Thanks for synthesizing the "student editor" feature set in the wiki.
> Such a page is what we can call a "letter to Santa" in developers jargon,
> and letters to Santa coming from the TEI community are very welcome
> by developers building tools aware of TEI. Thanks to Oxygen software
> excellence, this one is quite easy to put down.
>  From a sustainability perspective, I would add "open-source" to the
> feature set, maybe in the "2. Ideally..." section. This may not be much
> pertinent
> from the short term opportunistic point of view of a student (or a
> teacher),
> but may help consolidate tools appropriateness to TEI for the long
> term, which is what TEI is all about.
> Best,
> Serge
> Le 09/07/2016 00:58, Piotr Bański a écrit :
>> Dear All,
>> I've summarized this sub-thread at
>> (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