I wrote:
Without thinking about it for more than 30 seconds, here's a partial list of different user groups. No doubt this list can be expanded and much better described/subcategorized. But it's a start to further discussion if enough here deem it of interest.
1) Personal interest readers 2) Scholars and researchers 3) Students (K-12 and post-secondary) 4) Professional and vocational
Geez, I forgot one of the most important user groups of all: 5) Readers with special needs (blind, dyslexic, etc.) Note that there's a strong movement to require that K-12 and public post-secondary educational materials be highly accessible, to be offered in accessible formats. In the U.S., for textual materials this will very likely be mandated as the XML-based NIMAS specification (which in turn is derived from the DAISY Digital Talking Book specification.) If we want PG texts to be legally used in the classroom setting, which I think is an *opportunity*, not a *burden*, then we definitely need to assess how the "master" XML Schema settled upon (probably through DP) will be compatible with NIMAS by XSLT or other conversion method. It should be pretty easy to conform most if not all PG Master texts to the NIMAS requirements, since from what I understand the PG Master text Schema will likely be a subset of TEI. I strongly suggest that before any XML-based vocabulary be decided upon as the "master" PG format, that we consult with the technical folk at DAISY, RFB&D, CAST, etc., to assure we aren't overlooking something or doing something which would make accessibility more difficult. As a heads up -- they love good navigational aids in the markup and in external metadata (imagine being blind -- having multiple verbal menus to access the texts in different ways is important!) We might even be able to solicit the help of the accessibility community to add navigational markup to selected PG texts. Jon Noring