========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 06:27:27 -0500 Reply-To: "(liz klobusicky)" Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: "(liz klobusicky)" RFC-822-HEADERS: Return-Path: Received: from next2.cis.uni-muenchen.de by NOSVE.LRZ-MUENCHEN.DE ; 13 Mai 92 13:24:38 Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.63) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- subscribe TEI-L Liz Klobusicky ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 09:48:36 EST Reply-To: HUNTSMAN@UCS.INDIANA.EDU Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: HUNTSMAN@UCS.INDIANA.EDU Subject: Subscription Please enter me on your subscription list for the TEI protocols. I have a number of lexicographic texts I am working on and would gladly try to make these compatible with the TEI, which I heard some discussion about at the Kalamazoo medieval conference last weekend. Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 12:18:47 +0200 Reply-To: "Joseph A. Selling" Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: "Joseph A. Selling" Subject: echoes As you can see from a piece of mail that I just forwarded to you, I am receiving echoes of messages sent to you for subscription purposes. Perhaps there is a "glitch" in the system, the reparation of which may prevent unnecessary use of our respective mail facilities. I just pass along the note for your information, in the case that someone there did not know this was happing. ******************************************************************* | Joseph A. Selling Professor of Moral Theology | | Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid Katholieke Universiteit Leuven | | ST.-Michielsstraat 6 | | B-3000 Leuven, BELGIUM E-MAIL: | | TEL +32 (0)16/28 38 53 FAAAA11@BLEKUL11.BITNET | | FAX +32 (0)16/28 38 62 FAAAA11@CC1.KULEUVEN.AC.BE | ******************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 12:28:56 +0100 Reply-To: Michel Eytan LILoL Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: Michel Eytan LILoL Subject: Re: echoes Joseph A. Selling writes: As you can see from a piece of mail that I just forwarded to you, I am receiving echoes of messages sent to you for subscription purposes. Perhaps there is a "glitch" in the system, the reparation of which may prevent unnecessary use of our respective mail facilities. I just pass along the note for your information, in the case that someone there did not know this was happing. This happens because of people sending the subscription request to the LIST (ie tei-l), instaed of the LISTSERV. I did not want to intervene, since last time I dared ask people to set their status to 'nomail' before putting on the automatic 'I am on vacation' facility, I got ripped off by several very funny guys with very spiritual messages. I am also refraining from telling peolpe to read the instructions about what to send/get where(/from) and how. == ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 11:55:00 BST Reply-To: Lou Burnard Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: Lou Burnard Subject: TEI List The purpose of this ListServ is not to discuss how ListServ works or how it could be made better, still less to be rude about people who haven't read the instructions for using it. It is for you to discuss how the TEI draft proposals work, how they could be made better (and by all means to be rude about people who don't understand what *they* are for!). Availability of the first chapter of TEI P2 to be published was announced on this list several weeks ago. Have you read it yet? Do you have any comments? There are several hundred people signed up for this list; has none of you anything to say about it? Lou Burnard ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 13:21:03 -0400 Reply-To: Don Walker Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: Don Walker Subject: Workshop on Principles of Document Processing PODP FIRST INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON PRINCIPLES OF DOCUMENT PROCESSING The Workshop will focus on modeling document processing systems using formal methods from computer science, optimization, logic, and any other promising source. Commercially available electronic document processing applications and electronic document encodings include those for document creation (e.g., FrameMaker, Word), document interchange (e.g., ODA, SGML), document formatting (e.g., TeX, troff), document retrieval (e.g., Lexis and Nexis), hypertextual document browsing (e.g., Guide, HyperCard), document recognition (e.g., Kurzweil, Calera) and document rendering (e.g., Postscript, Interpress). This plethora of tools, processes, and underlying representations is not based on any common principles or models. This brings with it numerous costly and difficult problems. For example: How can a document application written for one document encoding be applied to documents represented in another encoding? How can it be determined whether a document application behaves as users intend? How can a document application be extended in a principled fashion to offer new functionality? To a large extent these problems result from the absence of commonly accepted principles and models for document processing. This situation will only be remedied when such principles and models have been developed. Indeed, document processing can be fairly assessed as being in a state similar to that obtaining for programming languages prior to the development of syntax- and semantics-directed compilation techniques, and that obtaining for databases prior to the development of relational and deductive data models. It is time to try to exploit current techniques and ideas from computer science to raise principles and models of document processing to the same intellectual level as principles and models for programming languages and databases. This workshop is a first step in that direction. It will help coalesce a community for the purpose of articulating critical issues and to offer avenues of investigation and ultimate solutions. The organizers would like to see: -papers identifying and articulating problems in document applications that can be addressed by formal methods; - papers about rigourous tools applicable to document processing. This includes (but is not limited to) papers on the semantics, representation, and transformation of documents; languages for document processing systems; integrity and performance specifications; and verification methods. Especially sought are papers making use of established methods from mathematics and computer science: semantics; logics and logic programming; mathematical programming and optimization; complexity; algorithms; algebraic data types; grammars; natural language processing, reactive and concurrent systems; knowledge representations, specification languages. Reports on work in progress are encouraged. Selected contributors will be asked (by a committee of referees to be announced) to submit full-length papers to a refereed volume to be published a few months subsequent to the Workshop. DATES 1:00pm October 21, 1992 until 12:00pm October 23, 1992 LOCATION Philip Greenberg House 2301 Calvert St., NW Washington, D.C. 20008-2644 The Greenberg House is a small conference facility owned by Syracuse University. It is situated near the corner of Calvert and 24th Streets, and is a 5-minute walk from the Woodley Park Zoo Metro station and from the Sheraton Washington Hotel. SPONSORS Cornell University Mathematical Sciences Institute (an Army Research Office Center of Excellence), Syracuse University School of Computer and Information Science, and Xerox Webster Research Center. Additional sponsors will be announced at a later date. ORGANIZERS Prof. Howard A. Blair, School of Computer and Information Science, Syracuse University; Dr. Allen L. Brown, Jr., Webster Research Center, Xerox Corporation; Prof. Richard K. Furuta, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland; Prof. Anil Nerode, Department of Mathematics, Cornell University SUBMITTALS Prospective contributors of papers to be presented at the Workshop should submit 3-5 page abstracts of their papers by July 31, 1992. Abstracts should be sent to Dr. Allen L. Brown, Jr by either physical mail Xerox Webster Research Center 800 Phillips Road 128-29E Webster, New York 14580 U.S.A. electronic mail (as plain ASCII text, LaTeX or PostScript) abrown@wrc.xerox.com or facsimile +1 716 422 2126 The organizers will inform authors regarding the acceptance of their abstracted papers on or before August 31, 1992. Prospective speakers whose participation is contingent upon the defrayal of their travel expenses, and who have no other source, should mention this need in a letter accompanying their submitted abstracts. Limited funds are available to the organizers to subsidize such expenses in a few selected cases. ACCOMMODATIONS 40 rooms have been reserved at Sheraton Washington Hotel 2660 Woodley Road., NW Washington, DC 20008 The reservation phone number is +1 202 328 2900. The conference rate is $95/night. Attendees are expected to make their own reservations, which should be done prior to September 21, 1992. REGISTRATION and ATTENDANCE Attendance at the Workshop will be limited to 50 participants (including the speakers). Prospective attendees should fill out the form below and return it by September 21, 1992 via post, email or facsimile to Dr. Allen L. Brown, Jr. at the relevant destination given above for the submission of abstracts. ---------------------------------------------------------------- REGISTRATION FOR FIRST INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE PRINCIPLES OF DOCUMENT PROCESSING Name: Title: Affiliation: Address: Email address: Telephone: Paper title (if you submitted or intend to submit): ---------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 16:28:22 +0100 Reply-To: Michel Eytan LILoL Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: Michel Eytan LILoL Subject: Re: TEI List Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 11:55:00 BST From: Lou Burnard Subject: TEI List The purpose of this ListServ is not to discuss how ListServ works or how it could be made better, still less to be rude about people who haven't read the instructions for using it. Monseigneur, I beg with utmost humility your gracious forgivenness for having dared to call the attention of people on the list unfamiliar with 'listserv' to some simple ways not to inconvenience many others by automatic messages -- in reply to an explicit enquiry as to the cause of these messages. It is for you to discuss how the TEI draft proposals work, how they could be made better Yes, Sir! Certainly, Sir! Undoubtedly, Sir! (and by all means to be rude about people who don't understand what *they* are for!). Huh????? Availability of the first chapter of TEI P2 to be published was announced on this list several weeks ago. Have you read it yet? Do you have any comments? There are several hundred people signed up for this list; has none of you anything to say about it? Lou Burnard Not yet, Sir! promise to do it as soon as the exams and correction of papers are over, Sir! God strike me dead if I disobey, Sir! Your most humble, obedient and sinful servant who begs your gracious pardon -- a mere worm writhing dejectedly in the dust and dirt of ignorance and manners. ==sganarelle aka eytan@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 10:54:00 GMT Reply-To: CBTS8001@IRUCCVAX.UCC.IE Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: Peter Flynn Subject: Re: TEI List On Fri, 15 May 1992 11:55:00 BST Lou Burnard quibbles: >The purpose of this ListServ is not to discuss how ListServ works or how >it could be made better, still less to be rude about people who haven't >read the instructions for using it. But it could be used to point the inexperienced at some help. >Availability of the first chapter of TEI P2 to be published was >announced on this list several weeks ago. Have you read it yet? Do you >have any comments? There are several hundred people signed up for this >list; has none of you anything to say about it? As the handling of speech markup is not a priority with me, no, I haven't. But being a good little boy I have just downloaded the file and it is printing now. I shall probably have something to say about it at some stage. ///Peter ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 10:27:26 CDT Reply-To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Subject: notice from the press The current issue of Byte, with a set of cover stories on the theme "Managing Infoglut", has several stories likely to be of interest to readers of this list. If you do not subscribe, you may wish to pick up a copy. Haviland Wright of Avalanche Development writes in "SGML Frees Information" about how SGML can be used to capture the information in documents, at a deeper level than that of physical layout. He also points out with examples how markup designed specifically for specific applications can capture even more interesting information than purely generic markup. I take this as a confirmation that the TEI's emphasis on extensibility and modifiability is correct. If anyone wonders whether it is really still necessary to warn about the dangers of an exclusive focus on physical layout, they will find their fears amply confirmed in the piece on "The New Age of Documents" by John E. Warnock of Adobe Systems, who touts a new plan by Adobe to pass documents in a Postscript-based markup focused *exclusively* on the documents' appearance, which would effectively make the documents uneditable and unusable for any purposes except screen viewing and printing on paper. Goodbye, information! Warnock does allow as how once the 'first phase' of getting everyone to standardize on this presentational markup, one would want to "add semantic information to the standard". He does not say how he thinks something like 'semantic information' can usefully be added into a scheme built around the idea of ignoring semantics. Louis R. Reynolds and Steven J. DeRose (the head of the TEI work group on hypertext and hypermedia) contribute a paper on "Electronic Books", which provides a useful overview of the development of electronic hypermedia systems, the importance of SGML and HyTime, and the emergence of SGML standards including that of the TEI. Unfortunately, the review articles on search and retrieval and on word processing seem at a quick glance to say nothing about the issues of descriptive markup and ability to import and export files in non-proprietary formats like SGML. We've still got a way to go. But the existence of this cover story does indicate that progress *is* being made. -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen ACH / ACL / ALLC Text Encoding Initiative University of Illinois at Chicago ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 12:05:00 EDT Reply-To: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741" Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741" Subject: Response re Infoglut/Byte/Electronic Preservation In his recent message on the Byte articles on Infoglut, Sperberg-McQueen notes with some disparagement the "Carousel" idea put forth by Adobe for providing a standard interface for reading. He calls it a focus on physical layout, an emphasis "which would effectively make the documents uneditable and unusable for any purposes except screen viewing and printing on paper". Looking for the half-full glass, I see here a potential means of document distribution which allows the preservation of the author's intent (let's set aside deconstructivist issues here for the moment, if we may). In other words, it offers a means of document security; what I am calling electronic preservation. This is a tool we are in need of in the ephemeral electronic environment; the ability to know that the footnote reference to a document that I just made will be relevant to you--i.e. that the document still exists in the form I read and am writing about--is important for scholarly communication. Pages of illustration. There are plenty of other issues, such as preserving the original file that the Carousel image is taken from; electronic authentication algorithms and electronic signatures; cryptography as a tool; hashing; and the like. But the Carousel mechanism seems to offer one item for the toolkit for this need. --Peter Graham, Rutgers University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 12:21:00 EDT Reply-To: John Lavagnino Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: John Lavagnino Subject: Re: Infoglut/Byte/Electronic Preservation Regarding the Byte article on Adobe's "Carousel" product and its concern solely with physical layout, Peter Graham writes: > Looking for the half-full glass, I see here a potential means of > document distribution which allows the preservation of the author's > intent (let's set aside deconstructivist issues here for the moment, if > we may). In other words, it offers a means of document security; what I > am calling electronic preservation. > This is a tool we are in need of in the ephemeral electronic > environment; the ability to know that the footnote reference to a > document that I just made will be relevant to you--i.e. that the > document still exists in the form I read and am writing about--is > important for scholarly communication. I agree that we need such a tool, but Carousel doesn't sound like it would do it very well. 1) Intention is not limited to the intent to create a physical page. Page description languages and Carousel-ish successors lose a lot of information that a writer may provide, particularly when not using a WYSIWYG word processor. 2) The problem of preservation as P.G. refers to it breaks down into two more specific problems: --- security: knowing that you've got the right version of the document; --- reference system: knowing what number a footnote wound up with, or what page a sentence appeared on. Neither is addressed in any special way by the Carousel scheme. Security requires something quite different---a checksum or encryption mechanism that would allow you to know you've got the document you think you've got. Reference systems can be better incorporated in SGML documents than in print-oriented documents that just deal with page and footnote numbers as pieces of type like any others, and don't have any indication of their special significance. (I should say that my claims about Carousel are based on the description in the NY Times some months back. It sounded like a marginally enhanced kind of PostScript that was better about portability of documents because it was smarter about, say, substituting fonts for ones you lack. It could be argued that for the preservation of intent about physical appearance PostScript as such is actually better.) John Lavagnino Department of English, Brandeis University ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 13:16:44 -0400 Reply-To: "Eileen M. Fitzpatrick" Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: "Eileen M. Fitzpatrick" Could you please send information on how to obtain the project report issued by the TEI subcommittee on encoding spoken language? Thank you. Eileen Fitzpatrick ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 14:46:52 CDT Reply-To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Subject: Re: Response re Infoglut/Byte/Electronic Preservation In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 19 May 1992 12:05:00 EDT from On Tue, 19 May 1992 Peter Graham said: >Looking for the half-full glass, I see here a potential means of document >distribution which allows the preservation of the author's intent (let's set >aside deconstructivist issues here for the moment, if we may). In other words, >it offers a means of document security; what I am calling electronic >preservation. Your reply raises some important issues, for which I thank you. You are right to point to document stability and validation as crucial questions. And I am willing to admit that Carousel may have some utility as one tool in a toolkit -- though right now I am more convinced that it's dangerous than I am that it is useful. But nevertheless there are several reasons I'm not enthusiastic about Carousel as a way of preserving the author's intent. (1) The Carousel layout of a document matches the author's intent only if (a) the author created the document electronically, and (b) the author succeeded in making the layout program do what the author intended it to do -- not a free assumption, in my experience! -- and (c) the term "author's intent" is narrowed to include only presentational matters. For many electronic texts, none of these are plausible assumptions. Pre-existing texts were by definition not created with Carousel in mind, so the layout expressed in a Carousel file belongs to someone other than the author. The layout created by a Carousel-capable application does not necessarily match *anyone's* intention. And for much of literary history, authors specifically and intentionally left details of presentation to the printer and publisher: not just font and leading, but spelling and punctuation. (2) An author who takes a critical interest in the typographic presentation of the text (e.g. Stefan George, who demanded very specific fonts, etc.) may be thought to have an intent related to the layout and presentation of the text, and we may well be interested in the details of a text's presentation even if it does not reflect any authorial intention. But Carousel does not necessarily preserve those details. John Warnock's article in Byte makes clear that Carousel does *not* guarantee the presentation of the document in the same typography as was sent: locally available fonts may be substituted when the 'original' fonts are not available. An illustration shows the replacement of a serifed font by a sans serif font with similar font metrics. This preserves the line breaks and the approximate visual mass of the text blocks on the page, but if Stefan George's publisher had done anything of the sort, George would have revoked the publication agreement. George specified a font, not a set of font metrics. So if one is deeply interested in details of the original presentation of the text, Carousel should be regarded as deeply flawed and unreliable. (3) I don't believe an author's intent is the only or most important aspect of a text (this may be the 'deconstructionist' argument you ask to set aside for a moment, but I don't think you can persuade people to do that), nor do I believe that an author's desires for the presentation of the text are usually the most important part of the author's intention. (It is not that Stefan George insisted on sans serif type, but *why* he did so, that helps us read him!) Reading a text is only one of the things one can do with electronic material (and the one for which paper is most often still a better approach); we need electronic interchange formats which allow us to do more than replicate the layout of the text. That means we need electronic interchange formats which capture the information structure of the text, not its physical appearance, which is not the most interesting aspect of the text, even in rare cases like that of Stefan George. When one wants, as many people do, to combine markup of the information structure of the text with some information about its physical appearance, I believe it will prove easier to add information about physical appearance and presentation to the information structure than vice versa. I'm a medievalist; I work with texts transmitted in manuscripts; I appreciate the importance of physical evidence in understanding the transmission and life of a text. But I know there is more to the text than the pattern it makes on the page; that's why we find manuscripts more interesting when we can read the languages they are written in than when we cannot. And that is why I believe an exclusive attention to details of physical layout and presentation is a dead end for those interested in serious work with electronic texts. All of this is just my opinion, and should not be mistaken for the official view of my employers or colleagues, who may weigh in to contradict me any moment now. -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen ACH / ACL / ALLC Text Encoding Initiative University of Illinois at Chicago ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 15:27:34 CST Reply-To: "Robin C. Cover" Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: "Robin C. Cover" Subject: INFOGLUT/CAROUSEL/DOCUMENT INTERCHANGE John Warnock's article on Carousel as a platform for document interchange is worthy of a careful reading: not a hasty reading, but a *careful* reading. Tracing the logic led me to conclude that the whole thing represents a public menace, at least within the framework of proposed solutions to "infoglut." A lot of people will not understand that this superficial solution to information interchange is just setting back the clock, putting real solutions even further away and harder to obtain. The terminology "document interchange" as applied to Carousel, tightly coupled with the insistence that "information" is the most important aspect of a document-interchange architecture, is a sinister and mischievous verbal sleight of hand. The phrase "document interchange" appears in the article subtitle and passim throughout the article. So too, "information" gets big billing, as in the declaration "[for document interchange] You need an architecture that transcends the boundaries of computer environments and emphasizes the independence and completeness of the information's structure" (p. 258). But where's the beef? In my vocabulary, what Carousel offers neither information management nor document interchange at all, but a would-be communication format for the *appearance* of formatted text. Warnock calls Carousel a "document communication technology" in one place, but this more truthful definition is utterly lost amidst the hand-waving and pulpit-pounding that bills Carousel as an information-rich document interchange standard. The hype has caught on in almost every description I have read: for example, "New Document Interchange Era Starts to Unfold: Transparent Document Interchange" (PC Week, March 9 1992). The only way the description "document interchange (standard)" can be justified is to make the modern, and admittedly partially true argument that "Formatted documents are abstractions of information." So Warnock calls the "document" "that basic staple of our information diet" (260). But at this level of abstraction, document interchange according to Carousel is no more "interchange" than the act of checking out a book from the public library. According to Warnock, "One of Carousel's fundamental concepts is that you should be able to work with electronic documents in the same way that you work with paper -- and still be able to take advantage of their being computer files. Carousel documents are, therefore, partitioned into pages. . ."(260). In principle, we could agree that a document management system which affords the *genius* of the paper document in an electronic document system is a good idea. But Carousel actually appears to capture the *worst* (most restrictive) features of paper, and to ignore the already-proven *best* features of electronic documents. We learn how silly this is in the MacUser article on Carousel where we're told about the "hypertext" capabilities of Carousel: "If you have an electronic newspaper article that jumps from page 1 to page 31, for example, a click on 'see page 31' will take you to the precise spot where you need to continue the reading" (Henry Bortman [MacUser technical director], "The Universal View Master," MacUser 8/3 (March 1992) 183 (3).) So, we get the worst of paper, right done to electronic page-flipping through the hodge podge of formatted newspaper so that we can continue reading the article. How neat: we can see the ads too, and maybe little mail-me cards will fall out of the computer onto our laps. The Carousel hype involves another major non-sequitur. The proper first phase in developing a document interchange standard (by a commercial empire like Adobe, since standards bodies working "by committee" represent a hopelessly flawed process; "Standards and Practice," pp. 258, 260 ) is to begin with: (a) the user's felt need to have something like a universal PostScript previewer that will work on all computers, and (b) with our *current* applications, ". . .enabling the majority of computer-generated documents to be transmitted, viewed and printed across diverse platforms" (260). Thus, according to Christopher Barr, "Adobe's proposed Carousel technology is a document interchange standard that's rich enough to handle today's documents." (see "Adobe's Carousel: The Fortified ASCII. (KW Adobe Systems Inc.'s Document Interchange Standard), PC Magazine 11/2, January 28, 1992, 31). A "standard that's rich enough to handle today's documents" is precisely the problem -- marketing hype that will wow people who have no clue about the underlying causes of "infoglut." Warnock would apparently like us to believe that our current applications' computer-generated documents pushed through PostScript printer drivers and thence onto the Carousel (into Carousel format) actually contain active structured information. On this TEI forum, readers hardly need to be reminded that our standard applications rarely structure "information" in any sense, or at least in the sense that software can knowledgeably extract information based upon principles of textual structure. How much less, once these documents are reduced to PostScript commands? Finally, I feel little confidence in Adobe's beginning point for establishing a document interchange standard: "fonts." Could we have chosen a more superficial, ephemeral feature of "text" than "fonts" if we tried? All the Carousel talk I've read quotes Warnock as saying that "the biggest problem [with document interchange] is with fonts." See, for example, the full-page sidebar in the Byte article, a full 25% of the article, called "Matching Fonts. They want to make sure that every line of text, right down to the hyphen point of each hyphenated word, is font perfect. Of course this makes commercial sense, in the New Age according to Adobe, to call for building a document-interchange standard upon the foundations of a (Multiple Master) font technology. The right place to begin? For the time being, anyway, I would characterize Adobe Systems' Carousel-as-document-interchange-standard as candy-coating of an apple that at the core, and also very near the core, is writhing with nasty worms. To imply that this technology represents the harbinger of a new standard for managing "infoglut" is a serious misrepresentation -- when we understand the real causes of our "infoglut" problem. Just an opinion, of course. rcc ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Cover BITNET: zrcc1001@smuvm1 ("one-zero-zero-one") 6634 Sarah Drive Internet: robin@utafll.uta.edu ("uta-ef-el-el") Dallas, TX 75236 USA Internet: zrcc1001@vm.cis.smu.edu Tel: (1 214) 296-1783 Internet: robin@ling.uta.edu FAX: (1 214) 709-3387 Internet: robin@txsil.sil.org ============================================================================= ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 17:00:53 EDT Reply-To: Luc Dupuy Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: Luc Dupuy Subject: EDW25 LDOC document is missing? Bonjour, I am not able to get the EDW25 LDOC document. Is it missing? If someone on the list has a copy of it, I would appreciate it that it be sent to me. Thank you very much. -- Luc Dupuy Centre d'Analyse de Textes par Ordinateur Universite du Quebec a Montreal dupuyl@mips1.info.uqam.ca ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 10:37:59 EDT Reply-To: Luc Dupuy Sender: "TEI-L: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list" From: Luc Dupuy Subject: edw26.tex Bonjour, I'm trying to format the edw26.tex document but the file "preamble" seems to be missing. Where could I get the appropriate set of files to process the TEI tex formated documents? I hope this isn't a FAQ... BTW, is there a FAQ list for the TEI group? Thank you very much, Salutations amicales, -- Luc Dupuy Centre d'Analyse de Textes par Ordinateur Universite du Quebec a Montreal dupuyl@mips1.info.uqam.ca