[tei-council] TEI for publishing: archival or interchange format? (was Re: What's next on the TEI publishing thread)

Kevin Hawkins kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info
Wed Sep 1 15:23:44 EDT 2010

Inserted a new last sentence in the "rationale":

While it need not replace every publisher's XML workflow, some 
publishers currently using XML might even find that the TEI's robust 
infrastructure and community-driven nature allows them to better cope 
with deficiencies in their existing practice and participate in an open 


On 9/1/2010 3:01 PM, O'Donnell, Dan wrote:
> I like that Kevin. I think the weaselling is pretty good and not
> noticeable. I do wonder if we downplay (or at least don't emphasise
> heavily enough) the real benefit that users of other formats might gain
> from working with us.
> I'd say that things that would immediately strike me if I was reading
> this as an outsider already committed to another format are: do they
> want me to start encoding everything in TEI? And what do I gain
> concretely in my workflow by dealing with these people.
> I suspect the answer is to make developing some transformation tools to
> and from major alternative XMLs a key deliverable of the larger effort
> (i.e. something we could participate in making?), and emphasing a little
> more strongly that an ability to convert in and out of some standard
> publishing customisation would allow content publishers an opportunity
> to really take advantage of community-developed initiatives and
> publication opportunities.
> I realise you make this last point to a certain extent. But I wonder if
> it couldn't be hit harder.
> But really well done.
> -dan
> On 10-09-01 12:51 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> On 8/31/2010 4:48 PM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> On 31 Aug 2010, at 21:30, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>>> Since I wrote most of the prose of the "call to action" in Google Docs,
>>>> let me try to clarify what I meant.  Sebastian thought that the call to
>>>> action is proposing TEI as an output format for sharing with users,
>>> not quite. I meant was it the format from which the readonly formats like
>>> HTML and ePub are derived. I was distinguishing between the genuine
>>> archive format (with all the markup, metadata and goodness) and the interchange format
>>> from which one can make the output formats. Maybe the distinction is false, however
>>> But I would never propose TEI as a format for users, sorry :-}
>> Okay, I understand now.  I have not been making such a distinction,
>> which is why I conflated "archive" and "pivot point" in my document.  I
>> avoided using the term "interchange format" because I find it ambiguous:
>> you use it as pivot point, whereas to me it sounds a bit like an output
>> format.
>> I have revised to leave more wiggle room:
>> https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARyxZGtPbrQ1ZHYzZHg3aF8xNmZyYjR3emY4
>> Is this better?
>> Kevin
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

More information about the tei-council mailing list