From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from cgl.ntg.nl (Cgl.ntg.nl [5.39.185.202]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2D4248BC for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:54:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cgl.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137BB484CB1 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:54:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cgl.ntg.nl Authentication-Results: cgl.ntg.nl (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=edenhauser.net Received: from cgl.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cgl.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zw9uDRr4TnZB for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:54:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cgl.ntg.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cgl.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B89484B1F for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:53:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cgl.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE988484A6F for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:53:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cgl.ntg.nl Received: from cgl.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cgl.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RrSOajHhMDlL for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:53:35 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=176.9.242.54; helo=mailout3.hostsharing.net; envelope-from=info@edenhauser.net; receiver= Received: from mailout3.hostsharing.net (mailout3.hostsharing.net [176.9.242.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by cgl.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78B84484A68 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:53:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from h02.hostsharing.net (h02.hostsharing.net [IPv6:2a01:37:1000::53df:5f1e:0]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (verified OK)) by mailout3.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD502100B020E for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:53:34 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=edenhauser.net; s=default; t=1717707214; bh=lvnltzTEPcVIPv0hP7PDjOqUjXmkKRWbE52hHw3FUkI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ndf3MEMpZBpGN1P5buIdIxGGyybaMTOBvEAwCfqmbWALRy8uxpJdwkJcPfFDcvIMR 7xVoTCCaasI3KoLxQzPwWt5smIpLdhLwTvNMaSDouu0PtmUugCku6js7icL+2X+ne8 Fl1gJkm26TdO9bzc21p+OImRIfY9BRhZzx3emVZokrg+SvRIqECHbVaNrss707jYjz B1SnwUb2ean5hiDjSN5jJ97A6omKSNIMQ9/yUqpy7ZBmG1hUIq3Tw4xdemu4fH3QSt fP3BvPOpZEIv6eNUjgR2wnLvxH8oqzbp+lj9PkvQ2UXIPi40VBhOxyM7xhpR3ZHwxY BM7fp8GUN+R8g== Received: from [172.20.10.2] (178.165.200.181.wireless.dyn.drei.com [178.165.200.181]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by h02.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52E30605163E for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:53:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <92602d89-d15f-4215-9825-4f44b50a0c9f@edenhauser.net> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:53:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: ntg-context@ntg.nl References: <9ec847c8-d48f-4a4a-bf32-de940af93934@edenhauser.net> <25ded686-f033-4a9e-a657-26abbb2bcfe7@gmx.es> <05f81be3-911e-4faa-9158-0b3ba26e4e1c@edenhauser.net> <76bfe0ea-91cd-498a-bc2b-1b282a10d104@xs4all.nl> <8a3d411d-7f08-4fdb-9d8d-d017900902ba@edenhauser.net> From: Christoph Edenhauser In-Reply-To: Message-ID-Hash: CTRX3K6AX37NOA2QIJZBZFSQ5KUGHW5C X-Message-ID-Hash: CTRX3K6AX37NOA2QIJZBZFSQ5KUGHW5C X-MailFrom: info@edenhauser.net X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.8 Precedence: list Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Subject: [NTG-context] ConTeXt source from XML List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2808337156932240514==" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============2808337156932240514== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------MUn07vwlquDYqR7x41wG2Av0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------MUn07vwlquDYqR7x41wG2Av0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Pablo, > Dear Christoph, > > just in case it might help to your meditation. > > First of all, lpaths are XPath implemented with Lua in ConTeXt. > > XPath seems to have as it primary purpose to address the nodes of XML trees. > > About your sources, the real issue here is to define whether you want > TEI or TeX to be the format containing them. > > I mean, if you add explaining footnotes to your TeX file(s), XML won’t > be source anymore. > > If you don’t want this to happen, you have to encode them in the TEI XML > sources. In my case, the connection to the original source will be lost. While we will still try to backport corrections, the connection will be lost at the very moment when we will annotate the source text. From this point of view, an independent source is created here anyway, so I have the freedom to choose between TEI or TeX. At the moment I'm leaning strongly towards TEI, also because I could try to remove the annotations via XSLT once the work is complete, diff the result with the original source and improve it). And besides, XML+ConTeXt looks quite elegant from the distance of my ignorance. (Although reading xml-mkiv.pdf creates a pleasant frictional heat in my cerebral convolutions, but leaves at least as many knots in them as XML data have nodes). > One last suggestion about proofreading. This is something I learnt from > personal experience. > > The first reading is much better to catch errors in the text than the > subsequent ones. > > Having the text properly formatted and printed on paper helps a lot to > spot errors. Same here: It's the paper! (I for myself prefer for the first proof reading a page lots of white space, in monospaced font like Courier, while my proofreader wants to see the font that will be used in the end.) Thank you very much for your suggestions, Christoph --------------MUn07vwlquDYqR7x41wG2Av0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dear Pablo,

Dear Christoph,

just in case it might help to your meditation.

First of all, lpaths are XPath implemented with Lua in ConTeXt.

XPath seems to have as it primary purpose to address the nodes of XML trees.

About your sources, the real issue here is to define whether you want
TEI or TeX to be the format containing them.

I mean, if you add explaining footnotes to your TeX file(s), XML won’t
be source anymore.

If you don’t want this to happen, you have to encode them in the TEI XML
sources.

In my case, the connection to the original source will be lost.  While we will still try to backport corrections, the connection will be lost at the very moment when we will annotate the source text.
From this point of view, an independent source is created here anyway, so I have the freedom to choose between TEI or TeX.
At the moment I'm leaning strongly towards TEI, also because I could try to remove the annotations via XSLT once the work is complete, diff the result with the original source and improve it). And besides, XML+ConTeXt looks quite elegant from the distance of my ignorance. (Although reading xml-mkiv.pdf creates a pleasant frictional heat in my cerebral convolutions, but leaves at least as many knots in them as XML data have nodes).

One last suggestion about proofreading. This is something I learnt from
personal experience.

The first reading is much better to catch errors in the text than the
subsequent ones.

Having the text properly formatted and printed on paper helps a lot to
spot errors.

Same here: It's the paper!
(I for myself prefer for the first proof reading a page lots of white space, in monospaced font like Courier, while my proofreader wants to see the font that will be used in the end.)

Thank you very much for your suggestions, 

Christoph

--------------MUn07vwlquDYqR7x41wG2Av0-- --===============2808337156932240514== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror) archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________ --===============2808337156932240514==--