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

[Lou Burnard]

Well, P5/Source/Guidelines/en/style-guide.txt is really only the 
beginnings of a style guide. I copied the whole of it into tcw20.xml 
because it seemed convenient to have everything in one place. By all 
means let's work on elaborating it (and perhaps, when it gets bigger, 
replacing it by a link in tcw20), but there's no need to maintain this 
information in  THREE places surely?



the On 26/02/12 17:30, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>