[Fwd: Re: [tei-council] on conformance document

[Syd Bauman]

> Syd -- any objection to my moving your comments to the wiki?

Well, not any principled objection, but that's not my presumption of
how one would want to use a wiki. I wrote comments on the document SR
posted, not changes to it.


> What is a "vanilla" schema?

A schema that is created through no customizations other than module
selection (and perhaps declarations of entities & notations), which
includes the four "required" modules: tei, core, header,
textstructure.


> I don't think anyone is making that claim.

Well, that's my reading of the document, but even more importantly
I think other people will interpret it that way.


> The intention is to distinguish what most of us would intuitively
> define as kosher TEI modifications (level 1) from a schema which
> adds completely new elements (level 2) and one which changes the
> class system or which adds elements from other namespaces (level
> 3).

But my point is that a schema that adds new elements *is* completely
kosher, and it is important (*very* important) that it be perceived
as such.


> I think this is a misreading of the meaning of the word "level"
> here: it's not meant to be evaluative in the way you suggest. This
> is always a problem with this word, mind you: we need another one!
> any suggestions?

If it is a misreading, it will be a common one. I think we need an
entirely descriptive system (i.e., phrases like "TEI conformant",
"TEI compliant", "TEI format", "TEI structured" or whatever) as
opposed any system based on levels, whether they be called "level"s,
"tier"s, "rank"s, "degree"s, "grade"s, or whatever.