[tei-council] Agenda for TEI council conference call on Jan 31, 2005 at 1300 UTC

[Syd Bauman]

Lou, Sebastian --
  Thanks for writing this up. I gave it a quick scan, and overall
looks good. Minor quibbles below.


> EDW81 (http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/edw81.html)

[Lou -- I'm happy to just make these updates directly to edw81 if you
like.] 

State of the Patient

* PR has been deleted

* CR has been merged into SA


Tasklist::urgent

1. Hey! You (Lou) promised more examples than just Lite.

13. I think discussion of standoff does not belong in NH. SA is
    1probably the right place.


Tasklist::nonurgent

1. I still don't know exactly what you (Lou) mean by this, but also
   IIRC the current prose in CH does not match the WG's final
   reccomendation, and thus needs updating.

2. Mostly done as described in edw79

5. What's CP?


Tasklist::after all else

3. As I've said before, I think it is unacceptable to remove BIB.
   Furthermore, I think 80% or so of it can be finished now, without
   waiting, and perhaps (per Lou & my conversation earlier this week)
   I should even do that this coming week.


> TCW05 (http://www.tei-c.org/Council/tcw05.html) 

* In the list of 3-stage validation:
  - we should mention the errors from jing that we are ignoring in
    pass 1
  - I think the wording for pass 2 is really confusing (implies that
    there is a separate schema for each example), but I'm too tired
    right now to come up with a better one

* Two sentences later, the explanation of multiple occurences of same
  xml:id= values is a little confusing. Suggested replacement:

          Stage 2 caught many instances of duplicate IDs. It is a
          feature of xml:id that all values must be unique across the
          whole document, whatever namespace is used. This means that
          3 examples in a row which in P4 used
          <eg><![CDATA[<p id="foo">]]></eg> to make some point would
          now cause a validation
          error if all 3 are simply converted to
          <eg><![CDATA[<p xml:id="foo">]]></eg>.
          Whether having such examples is desirable, acceptable, or
          plain wrong caused a heated debate between LB, SB, and SR;
          but in the end all the values of xml:id were made unique by
          means of tedious hand-editing.</p>