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

[Rebecca Welzenbach]

I would be happy to do this.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Hawkins
<kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived