On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 03:17:41PM -0500, D. Hageman wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
> > On Friday 21 June 2002 10:44, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote:
> > > This library package is not the most easiest to classify. The Text
> > > Encoding Initiative is a group that has defined a schema originally
> > > SGML based for the generic mark-up of documents. It is slowly
> > > starting to be adopted by libraries and electronic document centers
> > > (even more so now that an XML version of the specification has been
> > > produced). The TEI specification is quite large as it is designed to
> > > be able to markup from everything to songs to poetry to technical
> > > papers to novels. Since the full TEI specification is quite large a
> > > 'Lite' version was made that is a subset that allows a person to
> > > markup over 90% of the type of documents one would encounter. The
> > > goal of this library is to implement the TEILite specification that
> > > is based on XML as this seems to be the most common path that
> > > libraries and such are using. It might be better to make a generic
> > > TEI root node and put this under TEI::TEILite or possibly
> > > XML::Schema::TEILite. I think I would like to stay away from the
> > > XML::Schema::TEILite as the XML::Schema might provide the wrong
> > > impression (as in modules for building XML schema models).
> >
> > Applications of XML often tend to go directly under the XML:: namespace.
Be careful here... The XML namespace should be reserved for modules
where manipulating XML is the primary purpose. *Applications of XML*
to a specific problem (like Job Control :) should *not* go into the
XML namespace. Of course, that distinction can be a fine one sometimes.
> > I'm ready to be proven wrong but I don't think TEI needs a top level namespace of
> > its own. XML::Schema is probably a bad choice too, as people would indeed
> > think that it is an implementation of W3C XML Schema (and if they have any
> > sense, run away fast ;).
> >
> > Given that it is a DOM wrapper, why not simply XML::TEILite?
>
> I guess the only reason why I didn't go with XML::TEILite is that I
> thought as TEI becomes more established that more people would be
> interested in adding additional tools. I guess one can't really predict
> the future and if later this prediction becomes true and people do such a
> thing and more 'group'ing namespace can be considered then. I am okay
> with the namespace XML::TEILite.
I notice the text above says "The TEI specification is quite large"
(implying possibly more modules over time) and "the TEILite
specification that is based on XML" (implying there are non-XML
aspects to it).
Given those points, and that the Text Encoding Initiative is a "big
thing" ("adopted by libraries and electronic document centers")
I'd go with a new top-level namespace: TEI.
Tim.
