[tei-council] TEI Conformance

James Cummings James.Cummings at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Tue Nov 21 12:18:37 EST 2006

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Two important new things here:
> a) the suggestion of a standard namespace for TEI additions. It's
>   a very attractive idea, and I'd welcome it. It both differentiates
>   these from normal elements, and groups them for processing. However,
>   is the burden for the casual user too great?

I would argue that it isn't.  A casual user, de facto, does not need to be
adding things which are not able to be defined with <equiv>.  If they aren't,
they are not a casual user. ;-)

They could always use a very simple xslt (I think I've already put it on the TEI
wiki) which just removes all namespaces, before processing, before outputting
HTML.  While I would not recommend that, it does lower the problems (though they
have to be careful to avoid element collision.

> b) raising the profile of <equiv>, to make it the mechanism
>   by which one legally adds new elements to the TEI namespace.
>   this is the perfect opportunity to sort out the use of <equiv>,
>   which makes me very happy

I think we should have a clear mechanism for documenting such equivalents as
<list type="gloss"> is what my <glist> element is, and then encourage (enforce?)
use of it whenever possible.  If it isn't able to be documented with <equiv>,
then surely it isn't really part of the TEI.  If it isn't really part of the
TEI, then it should be in a separate namespace.  (See, I could have made my
recommendations much more draconian....but I thought I should avoid that.)

> My real problem with James' offering is the naming. Its not
> catchy enough.....

I also worry because of the commonly used meanings of 'extension' dating from
TEI P4.  I agree they aren't very catchy, and I'm happy to take any suggestions
for improvements from anyone who agrees with the categories. ;-)

> I also don't think we should insist on a source description in the header.

That is a requirement from the current guidelines, I didn't feel it was
important to remove it.  That the source for a file is 'born digital' is
important, and better than having an absence of that information.


Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk

More information about the tei-council mailing list