[tei-council] TEI TITE question

[Kevin Hawkins]

On various points ...

On 5/8/2012 12:27 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
> But your argument, Kevin, I just don't grok, especially that you invoke
> interchange by suggesting making interchange harder, i.e. by adding to
> the potential mess of the content of @rend and the @rend vs. @rendition
> mechanism, one more mechanism, of using an element for that, an element
> which belongs on the "leaf", i.e., I would think, in a customization,
> rather than in the core of the system.

If we added <i> and then added a note to the definition of <hi> saying 
that it's equivalent to <hi rend="i"> (or <hi type="i">!), I would be 
happy because people who want to do undifferentiated italics would 
almost certainly choose <i> in this case, and our interchange problems 
(and stylesheet-writing problems!) would be mitigated.  I think this 
would be clearer than our current situation, in which there's no clear 
interchangeable solution for undifferentiated italics.

More below ...

On 5/8/2012 12:41 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
 > On 08/05/12 18:03, Martin Holmes wrote:

[. . .]

 >> That really does assume certain uses of XML, but I think they're the
 >> prototypical TEI uses, aren't they? Otherwise we might as well be using
 >> XHTML.
 >
 > That's my sentiment as well, that's why I said earlier that going in
 > this direction may make us want to rewrite some of the justification for
 > the TEI's existence, because I'm not sure if it will still be valid.

We all share a common understanding for why use TEI and not HTML, but 
when you look at the Guidelines, it never explains in what cases you 
should just use HTML.  So while I agree that you might as well use HTML 
if you're just going to use <hi rend="___"> everywhere, I think we 
should either articulate this in "About the Guidelines", or we should 
provide clearer ways to encode italics, bold, etc. in TEI.

--K.