[tei-council] NH

[Syd Bauman]

> I just had a quick read; its interesting, but I do feel that the
> message it hands over is a bit odd. It seems to tell me generally
> that if I want to do non-hierarchical stuff, I should not use the
> TEI; which is not an uninteresting thing to say, but does not
> belong here.

I think it does, and it was certainly the same (or worse, from your
point of view) in P4. These are Guidelines on text encoding, not just
in using our schema.


> But if these are good things to do, why are they not in the core
> TEI? Why do we give with one hand and take away with the other? 

Because it is insanity to simultaneously support all of these very
similar methods, and TEI has never been able to commit to one. I
tried hard to get us to commit to HORSE a few years ago, but Council
as a whole was unenthusiastic at best, and you and Lou were outright
agin it, IIRC.


> Why do we promote non-conformant markup? at least the examples
> could have been TEI with extra elements in a different namespace?

Indeed, depending on how CF reads, they probably should be. And at
least for some, we should be providing sample ODDs on the website or
wiki or Exemplars or wherever.


> With regard to the examples at the front in German and Italian,
> they are definitely incongruous. 

I don't understand you.


> How hard can it be to find an example of poetry in English where
> the linguistic structure is different from the lines? any old bit
> of Shakespeare will do. 

While you exaggerate quite a bit, you are correct, it is not
particularly difficult to find an example for demonstrating some
overlap. A bit harder to get one of the right size that behaves the
way you want, but still no big deal. It's the work of incorporating
it that I was referring to taking a few days.


> Using the Schiller to discuss "The third view, which we will call
> the vocal view, is concerned with direct speech or quotations"
> seems pretty articifial to me.

I'd have to re-read (and perhaps understand German?) to comment.