Hi Lou,

conceptually speaking there shouldn't be a significant difference so far 
as I can see, quite the contrary: I think the are made for the same 

But regarding the expectations of the Image API <surface> might deliver 
to few information itself. What the API expects is this:


<surface> is able to deliver {region}.

Any contained <graphic> is able to deliver its own image size but this 
is not what is meant by {size}. Implicit default value might be "max".
Information on {quality} might be only implicit as well ("default"). 
Both informations can't be stored explicitely.

Any contained <zone> is able to deliver {rotation}.

Best, Torsten

Am 05.07.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Lou Burnard:
> Conceptually speaking is there any significant difference between an iiif canvas and a tei surface ?
> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: TEI and iiif (metadata)
> From: MLH
> To: [log in to unmask]
> CC:
> Dear all,
> There is another point of contact between TEI and IIIF which relates to descriptive metadata (e.g. TEI's <msDesc>) and its treatment in the IIIF manifest. There are different perspectives on this in the IIIF world and many people want to keep manifest metadata minimal but in general I would think that manuscript scholars want more rather than less metadata. This is an active area of exploration in the IIIF manuscript community and it might be good for TEI to be involved.
> Is there scope for a TEI /IIIF Special Interest Group?
> Matthew

Torsten Schassan - Digitale Editionen, Abteilung Handschriften und 
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.: 
+49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165)