[tei-council] datatypes: outstanding questions

[Syd Bauman]

CW> Shouldn't [version= of TEI] be a fixed value? 5.0 for P5?
CW> Everything else seems to be asking for trouble to me.

Brings up a good question about what purpose that version number
serves, not just its format. In theory, the format has already been
decided (on 20004-01-27), and my suggested regexp violates it :-)
However, I note that we agreed on that format before we instituted
Sourceforge, and we may want to rethink this again.

The problem is we agreed on "5.minor.bugfix", but on Sourceforge we
are using, e.g., "0.1.10". Does that correspond to "5.1.10" (I'd
prefer not, as "0.1.10" implies it is still pre-release, but "5.1.10"
does not.)

Whatever the format for the version number (I sometimes lean towards
just using the release date, period), we need to consider whether it
represents only the version of P5 upon which the document is based,
or also the version of the local customization files. And perhaps the
language, too.

Of course it could be argued that whatever it is, it should be #FIXED.
I.e., the schema declares the only possible value for the (required)
attribute. 


CW> For all these regs, didn't we have a proposal to handle them?

There are several, IIRC, but the one that Council is currently
supposed to be considering was posted to the list 2005-07-08 with the
subject "regularizing names". Mailman doesn't seem to let you pull up
a single set of postings by thread/subject/date, but I think
searching for "regu" at
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/mailman/private/tei-council/2005/subject.html
will get you this thread.


CW> Time for boarding,

Hope your flight has gone well. I just checked with the front desk,
and you're not here yet.