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

Thu Jul 20 19:04:03 EDT 2006

James Cummings wrote:
> I'd like to also point out that the existing customisations and their generated
> schemas available on the TEI website should be advertised more.  There are
> people who believe that to use P5 they *must* use Roma and ODD etc. rather than
> just use one of the already available schemas.  i.e.
>
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_all.rng
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/teilite.rng
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_minimal.rng
>   
I recently added tei_svg to the Exemplars set, to cover
than old canard of how to use SVG. I agree with James,
these are not just there as test files, they can be used.
> Agreed.  One of the prime concerns is whether any of the suggestions on the
> table for 1.1 would break backwards compatibility.  If they do, and are deemed
> important enough they should be moved up to essential for 1.0.
>   
absolutely. Although I would put a rider that
we mean compatibility of _instances_. If a content
model now refers to (a | b c)*, and we change
that to (%model.abc;)*, then I regard that as
acceptable in 1.1. 
>
>  I.e. that web-Roma should allow one to create
> an ODD that would produce an invalid schema, but that when it goes to generate
> the schema, that its validity should be tested.  But in generally I think this
> issue is desirable rather than essential for 1.0.
>   
I agree with that too. Its a matter of better error-reporting in
Roma, not a fundamental feature of P5 1.0

And agreed that the conformance chapter is vital.
We must re-codify what we mean by the TEI
>
> I would like to see listPerson, person, etc. in P5 1.0, and think that the
> writing of related prose and reviewing of it should be given a higher priority.
>   
It would be an immense shame to lose that work at this stage
>
>> 1. The content model for <body> needs review with an eye towards better use
>> of the class system. In particular, it would be desirable to be able to
>> remove elements (including numbered <divN>s) without producing ambiguous
>> content models
>>     
>
> Essential?  Would this break backwards compatibility in 1.1?
>   
I'd say desirable. Don't special case <body>,
and particularly don't let the FAND drive the agenda.
We do not have a mandate for that.

<body> is well worth a good look,
but if it cant be resolved, wait for 1.1


-- 
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