[NTG-context] Critical Editions?
adeimantos at free.fr
Wed Jan 5 13:29:20 CET 2022
Would you mind to test the MWE sample I've given
(ConTeXt_Test_Footnote-ComplexMedieval.tex) whith a little bit more
information inside - in order to test furthermore ? You can change the
text, even the \dorecurse option, in order to see what simply works and
what does not for your purpose. There is a difficulty I've tried to
solve some years ago : when you get two parrallel texts (for example an
Ancient Greek text on odd page, and its translation on the even page)
the solution seem to be in 'stream' to get a side by side text on
different pages. If you try to do a two columns with separate texts -
greek and its translation in my example - on the same page, it is
working for the first page, but doesn't work for the following pages,
that's why the 'stream' option seems a better way (see here :
Le 05/01/2022 à 12:52, hanneder--- via ntg-context a écrit :
> Dear critical edition experts,
> the examples given in ConTeXt_Test_Footnote-ComplexMedieval.pdf and
> the other posts are really
> answering my questions. Everything seems to be already there and if
> there were a Wiki on critical
> editions I would perhaps have not even asked. Thanks a lot! If
> anything else is planned by the
> experts and you need input from a Sanskrit editor, please let me know.
> As far as I see, no ConTeXt input format for critical editions is
> needed, but since the topic is
> being discussed -
>> I don’t see any future in developing a ConTeXt input format for
>> critical editions, for the following reasons:
>> 1. Producing a print-only version (i.e. printed book) makes no sense
>> in 2022. This is not sustainable because
>> no-one will be able to take your edition and continue to work on it.
>> You have to provide a digital edition as research data.
>> 2. This digital edition has to be in a standard format that is
>> sustainable at least for some time so it can be processed with
>> various types of software. TEI xml has become the de facto standard.
> I must disagree. There is no print only version any more, so the first
> question is: Is a pdf more
> sustainable, or an online edition (based on html etc.)? Time will
> tell, I guess. The same applies
> to TEI based online editions by the way. No larger texts have been
> edited by that method yet (in my
> field), many projects are being worked on, but they tend not to be
> finished, when the project
> ends. Some of the people actually working with both TeX and XML-based
> say that the latter
> significantly slows down the collation process.
> At least in Indology books and scans are still being used. Everyone is
> talking about online
> editions, data repositories etc., but the reality as I experience it
> is not up to these
> expectations. One of our great paleographical online tools was almost
> lost, since there is no institutional
> funding for updating those systems. Even finding a host for an online
> edition can be (and is in our
> case) a nightmare. In short, my solution is: printed version as in the
> last centuries, possibly
> additional online edition with a shorter life span and online
> publication of research data. This
> sounds great, but actually we are talking mainly about the collation
> file, that is, the TeX-input
> file. Not a big deal, since now this can be turned into xml by
> ekdosis, and that's it. The mss
> scans are prohibited from online publication by German copy right (no
> Indian institution will grant
> any rights).
> Let me emphasize that I am not at all against these new possibilities.
> I was part of an online
> dictionary project (nws.uzi.uni-halle.de) that worked with TEI and
> everything else, but after the
> threat to close down Indology in Halle (the location of the
> dictionary), I have to finance
> occasional updates from our normal budget (the DFG had decreed that no
> further funding for this
> project was possible) and after my retirement - I have no great hopes
> for a continuation of my
> post - it might become quickly useless. As long as we have enough
> nerds who can and will do
> the necessary work privately, we are safe.
>> 3. ConTeXt is not stable enough to provide such a standard format: it
>> is in development; what you code today may not be compilable in 2 (or
>> 5 or 50) years.
> Perhaps not, but I had much fun just checking out its possibilities
> and have started to use it as the default.
>> 4. However, ConTeXt is wonderful for processing xml.
>> Hence: keep the input source and the processing separate. Code in TEI
>> xml (or a subset of it) and develop a ConTeXt stylesheet to process it.
> I am used to TeX-code, and so I'd rather stick to that and let ekdosis
> do the conversion,
> if necessary. But in publication practice in my field, most of this is
> just for private
> entertainment. Almost all publishers still expect a Word file, so the
> tool of choice
> is pandoc to downgrade from TeX to docx. Sorry to end on this
> depressing note.
> Prof. Dr. Juergen Hanneder
> Philipps-Universitaet Marburg
> FG Indologie u. Tibetologie
> 35032 Marburg
> Tel. 0049-6421-28-24930
> hanneder at staff.uni-marburg.de
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry
> to the Wiki!
> maillist : ntg-context at ntg.nl /
> webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki : http://contextgarden.net
Agrégé de philosophie
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas" - Lord Acton
More information about the ntg-context