[tei-council] directory layout of a TEI distribution

[Syd Bauman]

Does SyncRO Soft need to know the layout of the doc/ hierarchy? I was
under the (perhaps mistaken) impression they were interested in our
hammering down the tei/schema/ and tei/stylesheet directories layout
and canonical web location, so that they can mirror that layout and
point to the canonical location from their frameworks/ directory.


> share
> |-- doc
> |   `-- tei
> |       |-- P4
> |       |   `-- Figures
> |       |-- P5
> |       |-- Pictures
> |       |-- skeletons
> |       |   |-- p4
> |       |   `-- p5
> |       `-- web
> |           `-- Query

I understand what's in doc/tei/P4/Figures, and I even undertand why
it's named "Figures/" (as is customary in the TEI depot and website)
as opposed to "figures/" (which would be far more common, if not
customary, in Debian). But I don't understand why there isn't such a
directory inside /doc/tei/P5/, nor what is in doc/tei/Pictures. I
can look, of course, but not everyone on this list has a Debian
system with your stuff on it handy, and I still don't understand
a) why it's there ... this stuff isn't needed to read the Guidelines,
   is it? and
b) why we have GIF files instead of PNGs. Are GIFs back to being
   politically acceptable now?

What is in skeletons/? What are web/ and web/Query? (Which I don't
have.) 


> `-- xml
>     `-- tei
>         |-- odd

Perhaps this directory should be called /xml/tei/src/ instead? And
shouldn't there be a p5/ child of this directory? That way, if & when
the Board permits the source of P4 to be public, or if & when there
ever are ODDs for P6 (or perhaps a P5.1 beast) we could put it in
this directory, too


>         |-- schema
>         |   |-- dtd
>         |   |   |-- p4
>         |   |   `-- p5
>         |   |-- relaxng
>         |   |   |-- p4
>         |   |   `-- p5

My objection to there being RelaxNG schema for P4 still holds.[1]
I doubt I'm going to win this one, but there should at least be a
README file reminding users that technically, a DOCTYPE declaration
is required in P4, IMHO. (Or, we should create a P4.1 that drops that
requirement.) 


>         |   `-- xsd
>         |       `-- p5
>         `-- stylesheet
>             |-- base
>             |   |-- p4
>             |   |   |-- common
>             |   |   |-- fo
>             |   |   |-- html
>             |   |   `-- latex
>             |   `-- p5
>             |       |-- common
>             |       |-- fo
>             |       |-- html
>             |       `-- latex
>             |-- odds
>             |-- slides
>             `-- teic

Obviously, you're the stylesheet dude, you organize these as you see
fit. But I'm awfully curious ... why is it that odds/, slides/, and
teic/ are at the root level, and are not each split up into p4/ and
p5? (OK, I understand odds/ not being split, as those stylesheets
have nothing to do with the P4 ODD language; but one can write slides
in P4 or P5, no? We have hundreds of P4 files and dozens of P5 files
on the tei-c website, no?)


Note
----
[1] For those who did not get a copy of my 2003-10-12 mail to the
    Debian-layout-designers, here's what it said:

        Since P4 is inextricably tied to DTDs, and no instance can be
        TEI P4 conformant unless it has a DOCTYPE declaration that
        points to a DTD (and it's valid against that DTD), I would
        say that schemas for P4 in languages other than DTD should
        not be provided.