[tei-council] EDW90 proposals (1 of several)

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:

>><revisionDesc> applies to the document, not the header, surely?
>>    
>>
>
>I have often entered <change> elements in a <revisionDesc> that
>describe a change to the <teiHeader>. I think of <revisionDesc> as a
>revision description of the entire file (<TEI.2>, <teiCorpus2>,
>whatever). 
>  
>
Yes, so do I.

>
>We might create a mechanism for stating that a particular <change> in
>the <revisionDesc> applies to only the <teiHeader>, not the <text>.
>(E.g., attribute scope { ( "header" | "text" | "both" ) } or
>something like that)
>  
>
yrugh. If you must. I find it hard to imagine when one would
make use of it in Real Life (tm).

>Really good point. The problem is that "they", the folks who use
><witness>, already have sigil= in P4. So it's not a question of
>letting "them" have a special name, it will be viewed more as taking
>away the special name currently available.
>
>  
>
Well, P5 never promised to be backward compatible. Lots of people
are going to have to get used to small (but significant to them) changes.

If @sigil *is* a normal ID, there is no argument, it must be @xml:id.
Unless James can argue his case in full court.

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk