[tei-council] for 28 Feb. conf call: background on Best Practice for TEI in Libraries

[Kevin Hawkins]

The answer is mostly (a).  But I misremembered the specifics from Syd 
and didn't think till now to consult the ODDs where Syd explains these 
things, so it turns out Level 2 might actually be conformant.  But in 
both cases we're talking about conformance to the TEI's abtract model, 
not syntactic conformance.

Level 1 is not conformant because <ab> is abused to include the OCR text 
of the entire document, not something at the level of a paragraph.

Level 2 is possibly not conformant depending on whether you think the 
Guidelines say that encoding of <p>s is mandatory.

On 2/19/12 7:47 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>
>> a) The encoding prescribed in the BP for Levels 1 and 2 is definitely
>> not TEI-conformant; I'm unsure about Levels 3 and 4.  Not sure whether
>> this would disqualify it.
>>
> maybe you can give some background here. are levels 1 and 2
>
>    a) non-TEI deliberately,
>    b) only non-TEI pending resolution of feature requests, or
>    c) non-TEI by accident, pending some editorial work
> ?
>
> it would seem fairly weird for us to deliberately maintain customizations which are
> not TEI-conformant.
> --
> Stormageddon Rahtz
> Head of Information and Support Group, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>