[tei-council] changes to change

[Christian Wittern]

Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> writes:

> Christian Wittern wrote:
>
>
>> I am in the process of validating a whole bunch of files that have
>> been transformed to P5 from P4. Among other things, this turned up a
>> change to the <change> element which I do not understand. 
>
> Well, you *were* in the room when this was discussed!

I know, this makes it all the more embarassing:-)  What I was missing
was the reasoning.

> I think the rationale was that this is a bit of metadata which an
> application would generate in any case, and that a simpler structure
> would make that easier and clearer.  I don't think anyone expressed
> anxiety about migrating existing data -- tho Syd subsequently posted a
> stylesheet to do just that.

It seems that the underlying issue here is making the data
validatable, which is the one big theme for P5 and the real change
from everything before P5.  Not everybody will like it, but this
discussion has convinced me that in this specific case I am throwing
away structure but gain validation, which is a good thing.  So instead
of adding back the old way, I'll try to be a good P5 citizen and
change my stylesheet instead, which will then have to bring the
date-and-time thing in order as well.  Having said that, I think I see
another migration workgroup somewhere on the horizon...

>> The P5 docs (BTW, the examples are formatted a bit strange) want to
>> have just this
>> 
>
> What do you mean exactly by the "P5 docs"?
>
> At http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/html/HD.html#HD6 I see
> an example which looks fine to me.

I don't have the exact URL here (it is on my laptop at home), but I
think it was http://www.tei-c.org/P5/Guidelines/ref-change.html, but
that looks fine now as well.


>> All this is based on item 34 in edw92.xml.  While this might not be as
>> controversial as numbered divs, I wonder if it is necessary to make P4
>> to P5 conversion unnecessarily cumbersome?  I would prefer to have the
>> old content model as an alternative, but maybe I am overlooking
>> something?
>
> I think I would class having the old content model as an alternative
> as "unnecessarily cumbersome" -- and that was also the sense of the
> meeting.

I was talking about the migration. But this discussion has convinced
me now, as I said above that it would be against the spirit of P5 to
do have both -- what a big, radical change in the TEI world!


All the best,

Christian


-- 
 Christian Wittern 
 Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
 47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN