[tei-council] xml-colon-thing

[Lou Burnard]

Though related, I think these are two different issues.

I am now reasonably persuaded that it is possible to make good arguments 
for going to both xml:id and xml:lang without further ado. Drafts need 
to be produced for the relevant pieces of P5 as soon as possible, so 
that Council may review them. It is one thing to agree in principle to 
an idea as sketched out e.g. in David's summary of the issues, but quite 
another to agree to its full ramifications when presented in 
Guidelines-style prose with examples and justifications.

I am also reasonably well persuaded that there isn't any immediate need 
for TEI P4 compatability module, and unless anyone on Council  wishes to 
argue otherwise, my intention is that we do not do so unless and until 
the idea surfaces again in the TEI community. (But mark my words -- it 
will).




Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> We seem to have dropped this thread a bit. I was getting the impression 
> that
> the majority of council members do not accept the argument that P5
> should have transitional features to aid migration. Is that a fair 
> judgment,
> or should we have a show of (electronic) hands?
> 
> If we _do_ say that P5 should go straight to xml:<thing/>, it can be 
> assumed
> that it will be possible to write a "teip4compat" module as and when 
> needed;
> but that we don't need to decide now either a) how much compatibility,
> and b) how to own or maintain the beast. "A job delayed is a job done",
> as I always say.
> 
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>