In message <1176303249.4952.3.camel@caedmon> daniel.odonnell@uleth.ca writes:

> > I was suggesting that TEI Conformant documents could have renamings in the
> > TEI namespace, as long as they could be reverted according to the
> > information in the referenced ODD.  And then TEI Interchange Format would
> > insist that any such renamings be reverted before interchange.
> 
> This is what I understood as well.
> 
> 


OK, it's time to get radical. What do we need "TEI Interchange format" for? Why
do we need to define it at all?

TEI-conformant documents must be valid XML and must have an ODD. Why do we need
to go beyond that?

So far after much scratching of heads, I don't think I have come up with any
need for the concept beyond the possibility of non-TEI names cluttering up the
namespace (which I also think we have now agreed to get rid of).

The keen eyed readers amongst you will have noticed that chapter IN has now
disappeared from P5. I see no need to bring it back, since it is of purely
antiquarian interest.

So, TEI Conformant documents are ipso facto in the interchange format. End of
story. We don't need to worry about non TEI conformant (but interchangeable) XML
documents.