[tei-council] notes from this morning's call

[Syd Bauman]

> Under Finalize draft of MS:
> "but concern was expressed that there has been no response to some of 
> the detailed comments that have been made."
> -> Council agreed that once the draft was publicized, comments on it 
> should receive rapid attention from the MS taskforce.

Done.


> "Councilors" (passim) -> "Council members" (for consistency)

Done.


> "suggested that Councilors should look at items in the
>              order they personally prefer"
> -> "suggesting that Council members should feel free to look at and 
> comment on any items in which they were personally interested"

Done.


> "available on the web" (add xref to 
> www.tei-c.org/Members/2004-Baltimore/ maybe?)

Eh. Seemed like a bad idea at the time, but sure.


> I would delete: "SB thought there
>          was a reason for some, if not all, of these apparent
>          discrepancies, but could not recall them. "

OK. It was in there mostly to help hedge our bets (for which it isn't
really needed) and to try to remind me to research this and post
about it ASAR after we get P5 on SF.


> -> xpointer schemes, concerning which discussion was deferred. (till 
> when? should probly be an action point

Wording changed. But no 'when' was decided, and no actions were
proposed, let alone accepted. In fact, even the word "deferred" is a
bit strong -- Sebastian merely pointed out we didn't have to discuss
the scheme part now to agree to the rest, so I made the presumption
that Council was only agreeing to the rest. I'm not sure it was
completely explicit.


> I think describing Sebastian's stylesheets as a "problem" is pretty 
> cheeky but that's not relevant.

Yes it is (relevant). Badly worded on my part; reworded to avoid the
implication that the stylesheets are the problem. (Thanks, Julia!)


> yes the source forge version is the only one which is currently
> being maintained, and so any residual ones on the website should
> certainly be tidied up. Likewise e.g. tei-emacs

Thanks for the clarification.


> I thought the point was not to have more broader discussion but to
> decide on whether or not the proposal is acceptable as it stands?

That may have been the idea you expressed before departing, but it's
not what was eventually decided.


> Andreas Nolde and Bruce d'Arblay chiefly, I think. Isn't it in
> the discussion log, which you (I thought) were a member of?

What discussion log? Trembley refers only to "the group" in his
postings. I have a vauge recollection of reference to xml-biblio
(another SF project), but I haven't been following it.


Updated version should be out in a few minutes.