[tei-council] Standardi[s|z]ation

[Martin Holmes]

I think we should spin off the styleguide into a separate Working Paper 
(since it's definitely a work in progress), and point to it from both 
locations. There's a lot of work to do here, assuming that we're going 
to maintain our own styleguide rather than adopt an existing one. It 
deserves its own document.

Cheers,
Martin

On 12-02-26 06:50 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> This seems like good policy to add to
> http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw20.xml#house-style-orthography
> and I think also to P5/Source/Guidelines/en/style-guide.txt .
>
> It continues to bother me that we repeat information in these two
> documents, which could easily fall out of sync.  I would suggest having
> one point to the other, but I'm not sure which should be primary.  Thoughts?
>
> On 2/26/12 9:34 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Further to my rather cryptic comment below: my recommendation is
>>
>> a) look up the word in the OED
>> b) if it says that both -IZE and -ISE forms are usable, use the -IZE form.
>> c) otherwise use the -ISE form.
>>
>>
>> n 25/02/12 18:42, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> Michael Quinnion is good on this, (as on many other things)
>>>
>>>      http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ise1.htm
>>>
>>> The -IZE suffix only applize to words which (etymologically speaking)
>>> come to use from a Latinized version of a Greek suffix. That's the
>>> rationale given by the OED anyway.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should be guided by "instinct" here. Look em up.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/02/12 18:18, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> One of Jens's excellent proofing reports suggests that we standardize
>>>> spellings ending in -ise/-ize. I'm inclined to agree, and with -ise
>>>> looking a bit beleaguered these days, I think it should be -ize. Lou
>>>> agrees, on the ticket.
>>>>
>>>> So I ran this regex to see what we have:
>>>>
>>>> is((e[d|s]*)|(ing))\b
>>>>
>>>> It found 1529 instances, most of which aren't relevant ("otherwise",
>>>> "raise" etc.). But amongst those which are, they don't all seem clear
>>>> cut to me, though. I think these are uncontroversial:
>>>>
>>>> standardise
>>>> normalise
>>>> capitalise
>>>> specialise
>>>> summarise
>>>> computerise
>>>> italicise
>>>> recognise
>>>> regularise
>>>> categorise
>>>>
>>>> But what about these? I feel instinctively less happy with changing
>>>> these to z, for some reason:
>>>>
>>>> harmonise
>>>> compromise
>>>> analyse
>>>> exercise
>>>> utilise
>>>>
>>>> and I think these cannot be changed to z, even though, in many cases,
>>>> variants with z are attested:
>>>>
>>>> comprise
>>>> revise
>>>> devise
>>>> advise
>>>> excise
>>>>
>>>> So what do your instincts tell you about these? Should we basically make
>>>> a list of words which should use z, and put it in our style guide?
>>>>
>>>> Making the changes will be a significant job, because there are
>>>> instances of similar words in French that mustn't be changed ("utilise",
>>>> for instance). I think it'll best be done with XSLT (which can be
>>>> language-aware, and ignore the French) and some very precise regexes.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martin
>>>
>>

-- 
Martin Holmes
mholmes at uvic.ca
UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre