I think these "survivors" come from two sources:

(a) elements introduced after the ODD spec was written (e.g. postscript) won't
have been deleted from the spec. This is one of the interesting consequences of
the way ODD works...
(b) at one point in time, the view was that you should not permit customisation
of the TEI header. 

I entirely agree with Laurent that a really bare teibare would be useful. 
I am quite tempted by the idea that it might not even require a Header, but that
may be a step too far.


 message <176C96B9-6BE3-448A-A369-BE5D6BAADF63@loria.fr> Laurent Romary
<laurent.romary@loria.fr> writes:
> I did. And doing so discovered a few other candidates for deletion. So  
> the victims so far are:
> <editionStmt>, <extent>, <seriesStmt>, <postcript>, <biblFull>,  
> <notesStmt>, <typeNote>, <postcript>
> 
> I am still wondering why we managed to keep all these...
> 
> Le 4 déc. 08 à 14:26, Sebastian Rahtz a écrit :
> 
> > Looks fine by me. Have you tested whether it works
> > without them? possibly some hard-wired dependency
> > which is why we left them in? (if so, we should track those
> > down)
> >
> > -- 
> > Sebastian Rahtz      Information Manager, Oxford University  
> > Computing Services
> > 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council@lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council