My one concern about saying that we support TEI for dictionary encoding
is the confusion it might bring to our support of OSIS.
From what I remember, the current OSIS plan is to include some set of
TEI markup to support dictionary markup. I wonder if things like <ref>
would be included, since OSIS already includes <reference osisRef=...>.
-Troy.
DM Smith wrote:
> On May 12, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Chris Little wrote:
>
>> Our plans are to use TEI for dictionary encoding from here forth.
>
> Chris has started a wiki for how to encode a TEI dictionary. See:
> http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/index.php/TEI_Dictionaries
>
> In Sword's svn you can find tei2mod to build the module. It is
> discussed on the wiki page.
>
>
>> At the
>> moment we have some support for both P4 and P5 conversion to RTF (used
>> by BibleCS), plain, and HTMLHREF (used by GnomeSword, BPBible?,
>> others?). So...
>>
>>
>> Issue 1:
>>
>> Which filters remain necessary before we can declare that we support
>> TEI
>> and ship 1.5.11 with TEI support sufficient for all of the major
>> frontends?
>
> It would be nice to get the <ref> element working at least for Bible
> references and if time permits, internal references.
>
> We have code that models this already.
>
>>
>> I assume no one parses GBF, ThML, or OSIS directly for rendering. Does
>> anyone use the plain HTML filter? (I'll tackle the WEBIF filters and
>> do
>> any revisions to the HTMLHREF that seem necessary.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Issue 2:
>>
>> I think DM and I (so far CrossWire's only 2 TEI encoders) are agreed
>> on
>> using the more recent TEI P5 for CrossWire-encoded texts. None of
>> these
>> are yet available publicly, but DM's NASB lexicons use P5 now and my
>> (coming soon) revision of Webster's Dictionary uses it.
>
> Yes, we are agreed. :)
>
>>
>> Everything currently posted uses P4 (which was current at the time
>> they
>> were encoded). That includes stuff from Perseus (which came to us as
>> TEI) and things from the Germanic Lexicons Project (which were encoded
>> in TEI by me).
>
> These are all beta. And no released frontends support TEI, so any
> decision has little impact.
>
>>
>> Should we:
>> a) support TEI P4 and P5 separately (so we would need TEI P4 and P5
>> flavors of the filters targeting RTF, HTMLHREF, WEBIF, plain,
>> etc.)--This would require extra work and a larger memory footprint
>> than
>> the other options.
>
> No.
>
>>
>> b) support TEI P4 and P5 jointly (one filter for TEI, irrespective of
>> version, for each target markup)--This would be possible because
>> there's
>> not that much significant difference, but would be slighly wasteful.
>
>
> In looking at the TEI filters that we have today, I think that
> everything in there is also P5. The reason I favor this is the example
> (I don't remember where it is) at crosswire.org of remote fetching of
> entries from another website and displaying them. I think it used our
> filters. If this still makes sense, then P4 is likely to be a target
> too.
>
>
>>
>> c) convert TEI P4 docs to P5
>>
>> I think I prefer option c. It shouldn't be that difficult given the
>> standards' similarity.
>
> I find them very similar. I think that we should settle on one style
> of cross-references as you and I discussed earlier.
>
> You might find that validating them with your P5 schema will pass.
>
> In Him,
> DM
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
