Dear Digital Medievalists, I would like to bring this message to your attention, for two reasons: the first is that, with the rather heavy traffic on TEI-L these days, it may have slipped your attention. The second is that maybe some people interested and/or involved in TEI digital editions may be DM subscribers while not following closely the discussions on TEI-L. Please jump in and contribute :) Best wishes, Marjorie
-------- Message original -------- Sujet: IMPORTANT: towards a revision of the Critical Apparatus module Date : Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:23:45 +0200 De : Marjorie Burghart marjorie.burghart@ehess.fr Répondre à : Marjorie Burghart marjorie.burghart@ehess.fr Pour : TEI-L@listserv.brown.edu
Dear TEI community members,
We have been talking a lot of the Future of the TEI recently, and I'd like to offer you an oportunity to make this future better by contributing to the revision of a very important module :)
During a workshop of the latest TEI MM in Zadar, it was decided, in the work plan of the SIG for 2011, to start a special workgroup on the critical apparatus chapter / module. This workgroup, which I've been convening, has been discussing the issues of this module, trying to identify its shortcomings and the ways it could be improved. We have produced a document on the TEI Wiki, summarizing our email discussions: http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Critical_Apparatus_Workgroup
There have been several threads on the list, recently, about problems related to the Critical Apparatus module. I would like to invite all those who use the module, or would like to use it, to seize this oportunity to share on the list (and/or on the wiki page) their feedback on the Crit. App. module and chapter, the issues they have had while working on TEI critical editions, or the good points they want to stress in the module. Suggestions for improvement are, of course, welcome. The outcome of the discussion will be discussed further during the SIG meeting at the TEIMM 2011 in Würzburg.
It strikes me that many people feel unhappy with this crucial module, each time thinking that it's because the module has been designed with other usages / users in mind: scholars interested in "born-digital" editions representing the variance of a text complain that the module has been designed with print editions in mind, while scholars wo endeavour to encode a print edition complain that it's not adequate either. There must be some way to make everybody happy - at least, why not give it a try? ;)
Best wishes, Marjorie