Screibman has documented the growth of Digital Scholarly Editing and its seems although it has been progressing for the last twenty years it still has some way to go. I get the impression from Screibman’s article, people were quite sceptical and editors of the day had to shift their goal posts to accomodate the new technology.
Mckenzie, when defining text, also mentions that its not only ‘how the form of the text affects meaning’ but the ‘process of transmission’. McKenzie was ahead of his time as he was lecturing about this subject seven years before the internet arrived. People had to look to the future and people had to up their game to produce scholarly editions in a new and obtainable open sourced way.
Print editions and digital editions had many similarities and ‘shared goals’. Editors had to shift the criteria of their codes – linguistic and bibliographic – and apply it to create digital editions. They wondered if the likes of HTML could be creative enough to take them to the next stage of scholarly digital editions. They had to work out how best to ‘encode structural divisions of text’.
They used an encoded language like TEI and the advantages were they coud take the text beyond and include objects, images and audio. They made it multimedia and mutidisciplinary and the benefits were extensive. By 2000 TRC was in use and it meant there was a bigger sharing of information and there was no end to the digital edition. It doesn’t finsh and have a final chapter like a print book would.
The progression had lead to the open source operations and belief systems of today without which there would be so much knowledge hidden, The OCHO (ordered hierachy of content objects) was instrumental in the development of TEI and it has grown and progressed from there, so where is it going to go next and will there ever be a final chapter …