|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | [[Category: SIG:Libraries]] | + | [[Category:Customization]] |
| − | [http://www.tei-c.org/wiki/index.php/SIG:Libraries TEI in Libraries: Home]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==TEI Tite: Issues Under Consideration==
| |
| | | | |
| | * [http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-exemplars/html/tei_tite.doc.html the official release of Tite, HTML documentation] | | * [http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-exemplars/html/tei_tite.doc.html the official release of Tite, HTML documentation] |
| − |
| |
| − | * [[Review of Tite Scheme]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Sorry my post is somewhat belated, given the survey has already gone out. But I wanted to raise one issue with tite--not with the scheme per se, but with it possible customization.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My understanding is that this is a tool which can be used to approach a vendor to obtain a discount for TEI members.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I also understand that as it stands now, this would not be customizable. My question is: would the discount from vendors be achievable mainly by virtue of the simplified set-up of markup, or by virtue of the (potential) size of the group? I assume both achieve some savings. However, when I look at work we might want to submit to such a service, we would want customization in tagging for any of those--but with significant overlap with TEI lite. If we get (theoretically) 50% of potential savings by virtue of the group, and 50% by virtue of using a single scheme, couldn't we still achieve 80% savings by allowing for ''some'' customization?
| |
