The 'request to the readership' which Michael and I jointly posted
yesterday seems to have been misinterpreted by a few, so let me re-state
what I thought was on offer. Or rather re-assert what is (regrettably)
not on offer.
It would be wonderful to have a properly moderated TEI-L list. If only
there was a constant flow of correspondence from the readership, pungent
comments, focussed discussion! If only the editors could be bothered to
pick from this constant stream the really important things, stem the
flow of irrelevant dross, polish the good bits lovingly, group them into
aesthetically satisfying shape, perhaps add a few footnotes to explain
hard words in them or provide useful references to background reading!
Sorry. That's not an option. This bulletin board is still unmoderated,
in just the same way that the TEI Draft proposals are DRAFT proposals.
We're struggling to establish a consensus from the bottom up: those who
want tidy solutions and simple answers are inevitably going to be
The posting of the other day was using the word 'comment' in the rather
specific sense of "response to the TEI Draft P1, probably submitted on
the form that came with copy of same" . It was asking whether you were
happy to get *those* undigested -- not the whole list. Sorry for not
making that clearer.
Apologies also to anyone who feels that I was mistaken in forwarding
Peter Robinson's comments on textual critical matters. There is a simple
option on my keyboard for dealing with such aberations though: it's the
Lastly, may I remind all correspondents that LONG MESSAGES ARE ALWAYS
DELAYED. Robin Cover's recent posting took nearly four days to get here
-- almost as long as it takes to get a new prime minister.