Re: [gutvol-d] Posting TEI
----- Original Message ----- From: Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de>
Jim Tinsley wrote:
Nobody has an objection to valid TEI texts, but valid TEI texts alone _are not enough_. An XML file that cannot be read (by an actual human) is as useful as a lock with no key.
Not so. Having a TEI text posted would enable third-party developers to come up with their own converter solutions eve if we didn't get very far with ours. There are a lot of people around who already convert the text files into other formats. Their jobs would get much easier.
I'm hoping Jim (or someone else) can clear up something for me. If I create a TEI document, use it to create a regular 8-bit ASCII file and valid HTML file, then submit all three to the whitewashers ... will they post all three (assuming the ASCII file clears GutCheck and the HTML clears the W3C validator)? If not, why not? If yes, why can't this be the "incremental" development that Marcello was alluded to? Please, this is not attacking anybody's stance. I'm really just trying to understand the positions/policies here. Josh
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:34:14PM -0500, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
I'm hoping Jim (or someone else) can clear up something for me. If I create a TEI document, use it to create a regular 8-bit ASCII file and valid HTML file, then submit all three to the whitewashers ... will they post all three (assuming the ASCII file clears GutCheck and the HTML clears the W3C validator)?
No. Not today, and, I hope, never.
If not, why not?
This is exactly what was starting to happen, and what we backed away from. In the scenario you quote, where you create the HTML and text from the XML, how do I check the XML? Take your word for it that you didn't change anything when creating the HTML? If you could create the HTML, why can't I? What happened in a few cases was that I spent many hours checking each of the three files separately, and if I find a markup error in the HTML, how do I relate that back to the XML, and . . . it was just a nightmare. Not a good way to go. I think we were all clear on this much: the XML way forward is to develop a reliable conversion method that the WWs can use to produce the other files. I really, honestly, do think that until we've got that (and why shouldn't we have it?? what's so unreasonable about it?) we should hold off. Which is what we agreed. A moratorium. That has lasted a lot longer than any of us would have believed at the time, because despite the apparent reasonableness -- to me, at least -- of the request, we still ain't got it. jim
Jim Tinsley wrote:
That has lasted a lot longer than any of us would have believed at the time, because despite the apparent reasonableness -- to me, at least -- of the request, we still ain't got it.
Maybe the request is just that: reasonable to *you* and nobody else. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
participants (3)
-
Jim Tinsley -
Joshua Hutchinson -
Marcello Perathoner