[tei-council] New discussion document on 1.0 release priorities

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jul 20 18:42:51 EDT 2006

Christian Wittern wrote:
> * class review:  We need to set up an efficient procedure for this,
>   including timeline.  Do you envision this as an editor only task?
My feeling is that we should ask Lou and Syd to
get closure on at least this phase of the class review,
on their own, rapidly. Too many cooks would
spoil this broth. If one of them checks the document
which lists all the changes, confirms they are done,
(where necessary adding others if they are not recorded),
we can move on. That is not to say the class system
cannot be revisited, of course.
> * Feature requests:  Currently there are 32 open, some of which look
>   like they are easily solved, other should be more tricky, if
>   agreeable at all.  This will require significant time and effort.
yes. but it has to be done. It would be immensely
bad of us to destroy the community by ignoring their
> * While I am undecided on whether we need a module dependency, I think
>   we need to avoid producing invalid schemata whenever feasible. 
I repeat my view from just after Kyoto that module
dependency is a red herring. Modules are not
the core building block in the ODD system, they
are just a a convenient way of group things. Attemping
to fix the invalid schema problem by using module
dependency will not work.

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

More information about the tei-council mailing list