[Fwd: Debian TEI delay]

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:

>While I'm confident something like this could work, no, I'm not sure
>the DocBook one would do the trick. What does "label your DTD" mean?
>And the permissions paragraph does not require that the modifications
>paragraph be retained. 
>
needs some wording there, agreed.

>
>No, I meant the consequences for the user that come from having an
>modified TEI(-like) DTD that was not extended using the indirect
>method of a user extensions file, i.e., real difficulty in
>ascertaining what, exactly, is different from vanilla TEI and total
>pain in the @$$ to upgrade.
>  
>
we can't stop people being dumb.

>I know the various problems direct modification of a flattened DTD
>can cause, and conversely the advantages of using proper user
>extension files in the P4 DTD world. What I don't understand is
>whether or not the same is true in the RelaxNG world.
>
>  
>
just the same.

 > In the big picture I think the GFDL may be the way to go. (That is, I
 >think perhaps the Board should charge the editors to split the
 >chapter on conformance as recommended by the FSF, and put the
 >Guidelines under the GFDL.)

I regard the Guidelines as a separate issue.

>And where, btw, do you (Sebastian) imagine this DocBook-like notice
>going? I'm presuming in every TEI DTD fragment file
>
yes, here. thats the important place.

>, and in each
>flattened TEI DTD created by the Pizza Chef, no?
>
>  
>
I am less sure about this. for starters, we cannot claim copyright on a 
flattened DTD,
because it contains your extensions which the TEI did not generate. TEI 
Lite is special
case, of course. I think the pizza chef (or rather his children) should emit
a notice saying that this is a compiled product which should not be 
modified at all,
but without claiming copyright over the whole thing

ebastian