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

[Kevin Hawkins]

Lou, I don't think Martin was suggesting that we duplicate the 
information in three places.  Instead, he suggested replacing 
P5/Source/Guidelines/en/style-guide.txt and the relevant section of 
tcw20 with a link to the new document, which would be a TEI document 
named tcw23 or the next available "tcw" number at the time of creation. 
  I agree with this strategy.

Perhaps one of our newer members would like to take on the task of 
composing tcw23?  Martin or I can handle updating tcw20 and 
style-guide.txt once the new document is in place.

On 2/27/12 11:31 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>