[tei-council] Tite and conformance (long)

[James Cummings]

Lou Burnard wrote:

> Indeed it was. I had in mind the broken-ness of not using namespace 
> prefixes to distinguish its non-TEI bits from the rest though.

Where has this idea originated?  When I look at the ODD, like Sebastian, 
I see that the additions are in their own Tite namespace?  I must have 
skimmed over an earlier message while busy where someone suggested that 
getting rid of these was a good idea, and for that I apologise. I don't 
think the extra few characters cause data providers any difficulty, and 
if they want to do it in no namespace (or TEI one) and then put in an 
extra step of transforming it to have TEI and Tite namespaces, then 
perfectly fine.  But I don't see why the TEI should consider making Tite 
*worse* by removing the Tite namespace.  Data providers can of course 
ignore namespaces and add them in afterwards with a completely trivial 
XSLT, and we'd have nothing to say about that. I just don't really see 
the benefit in keystrokes (like they actual type tags!) they can use any 
format they want internally, and map from that to TEI Tite as a delivery 
format for their customers.  (In fact, that is exactly what I'd expect 
them to do rather than change the internal workings of the transcription 
engines they use.)

The missing header seems much more important to me. ;-)

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk