20.513 standardized markup the only way?

               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 20, No. 513.
       Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
  www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/cch/research/publications/humanist.html
                        www.princeton.edu/humanist/
                     Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu

         Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:29:12 +0000
         From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>
         Subject: standardized markup the only way?

[From: DrWender_at_aol.com]

Hi all.

In the first days of March (20.485 fixing the MLA's problem) I was wondering
about the statement that "standardized markup" is the "only" way to study
editorial facts where computing is needed:

> a _gesamt_ edition of _Piers
> Plowman_. His thousands of alterations and recombinations in the
> text of _Piers_ can be studied and (partially) understood only with
> the aid of standardized markup--in this case, TEI markup.

Now, in a CFP (20.509 [...]Call for Papers: Markup as Theory of the Text)
cross-posted in the TEI list, it is suggested that markup is a theory:

> In keeping with the TEI Call for Papers for their member's meeting (1-3
> November 2007, University of Maryland), I would like to put together a
> proposal for a session on Markup as a theory of text.

What means the term "the text" in the subject of this posting? f.e.
'the text' of _Piers Plowman_? (As an idealization over the many
versions collated for the "hypermedia textual archive", or as "the"
text of exactly ONE of these versions?) In the one or in the other
way: How the term 'theory' is conceptualized when it is stated that
the markup handled in Virginia can be seen as a 'theory of the text'?
And what is the difference in meaning when, in the body of the
posting, the term 'text' is used without article? Is a "theory of
text" something like a "theory of language"? (Or rather like a "theoy
of sentence"?) Questions over questions, sorry.

   Hernert Wender
Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 01:46:59 EST