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

[Martin Holmes]

The question really is whether it's best to maintain this information in 
a text file in the Guidelines source code, or as a more public document 
on the TEI website. In the latter case, it would be in P5 and benefit 
from transformation into richer XHTML, with links etc. working.

I like the P5 option. It's currently part of TCW20 because it doesn't 
consist of much, but it's going to get bigger as we go along, so I think 
it deserves a document to itself.

Cheers,
Martin

On 12-02-26 03:08 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)