The Naming of Classes [was Re: [tei-council] Council class meeting notes]

[Lou Burnard]

Christian Wittern wrote:
>  One open
> question that needs addressing urgently is the issue of how classes
> are to be named -- we discussed this and the discussion is reflected
> in http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/edw87.xml?style=printable, but no
> decision, not even a coherent proposal has been reached.
>

As a step towards this, I have now written a substantial revision of the 
original edw87, after discussion with Sebastian and James (they however 
bear responsibility only for not having been able to persuade me not to)

To facilitate comparison, I have left the original version of edw87 
unchanged, though it does form the basis of my revision. The rewrite is 
available from http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/edw87a.xml

Comments welcomed-- especially if you think the underlying principles 
listed at the start of the rewrite are seriously flawed or 
incomprehensible. The details of the names themselves are less serious 
-- but if you don't like them, proposals for a better alternative add 
great weight to your objection.

Note that the list doesn't yet include any of the new classes proposed 
in tcm20.

Lou