[tei-council] addendum to agenda (biblItem)

[Syd Bauman]

> I'd also like to see the use of the target attribute spelt out in 
> examples ...

Me too.


> In general, I think that this sort of proposal is a good way to
> go, but it looks premature for a Council decision now.

We (at least I) am not looking for a Council decision of "yes, do it
this way" or not -- I am looking for the Council to at least
contribute substantially to the discussion, and, if needed, to wade
in, roll their sleeves up, and work the issues out and come up with
what TEI should do. That is, because (I feel) this single issue does
not merit an entire WG being chartered, it's Council's job to work it
out.


> I want to see concrete proof of interchange, to ensure (for
> example) that the work being done in OpenOffice is compatible.

I don't know anything about what work is being done in OpenOffice,
but I don't understand at first blush why TEI should be concerned
about it.

I think in general we should be looking how to encode things
properly, and only ask about concrete details like implementations 
and compatibility when considering different "correct" approaches.
I.e., it's important not to compromise good encoding for current
pragmatics.


> I also wonder, naturally, whether the TEI should be working in
> this area of structured bibliographies. We could just suggest
> that people code stuff in the MODS namespace.

I've never used MODS. Can anyone comment on this?