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

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Fri Jul 21 05:46:41 EDT 2006

James Cummings wrote:
>   In my mind we could introduce new modules, change the
> content model of elements to a degree (i.e. replace with classes, etc.), add new
> elements as long as they aren't required, etc.
right. it would help to have this recorded in the
conformance chapter too. a section there on the
TEI plans for compatibility. I assume
that 1.1, 1.2, ... 1.n would follow James'
rule above.
> What is a TEI P5 document?  Is it:
> 1) Something in the TEI namespace
> 2) Something with a valid TEI ODD
> 3) Something that validates against a schema generated from an ODD?
> 4) Something that has TEI and teiHeader elements?
> 5) Something that uses existing TEI modules and classes?
> I'm still curious as to whether, if I produce an ODD that allows me to rename
> all the elements I'm using to docbook-like elements whether that is a TEI
> document.  Does it matter if it is in the TEI namespace?  Or if I present the
> ODD with it?  The of course the question is what if I only rename 50% of the
> elements, but keep some TEI ones...is that document more a TEI document?
I think we have to break this down into levels of conformity:

level 0: the document conforms to the tei_all schema, or any valid 
subset of that
    (ie with fewer elements, tighter datatyping etc)

level 1: the document conforms a schema which adds new elements to the TEI
    but provides an ODD specification which uses the <equiv> mechanism 
which explains
    how to map these to standard TEI (ie people with syntactic sugar, or 
translated names)

level 2: the document conforms to a schema which extends the
    TEI element set by manipulation of the TEI class system

level 3: the document conforms to a schema which is based on the TEI
    but has changed the content model for elements so that normal TEI
   documents would no longer conform

level 4: the document uses the TEI elements in the TEI namespace, but 
embeds them within
   another schema

level 5: the document uses elements with the same name as TEI elements, and
   the same intended semantics, but does not follow any TEI schema or 
use the TEI

If we could agree on something along these lines, the conformance
chapter can say it elegantly, but we have to agree on a rough
> divs.  But, along with not liking div#, I've always abhorred the div0|div1
> optional starting point.  If keeping numbered divs the TEI should just decide
> that it only supports div0 as a starting point... or div1 (I'm not bothered).
> Did we ever make a decision on that?
I think I'm wth you. drop div0....
> That said, I assumed any major changes to the content model of body might break
> backwards compatibility and mean that 1.0 documents were not valid in 1.1.  Is
> this not the case?  If it is not the case, then it is only desirable and can
> wait until 1.1.
I thin the intention is make a backward compatible change to <body>

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