[tei-council] Comments on the conformance document

[Laurent Romary]

Hi all,
I know I should work on the wiki, but I'd rather not postpone writing  
down my comments and a short trip by train between Göttingen and  
Berlin looks like the perfect place to do so...
I  basically think that we should not impose a conformance grid (or  
levels - I know Seb's intentions were not to mean levels as an  
evaluation criterion), but a guide for people using the TEI to  
position themselves. I would thus suggest to take the conformance  
ideas as we have them in the current docuement and present them  
officially as a "conformance guide". Doing so I would suggest to  
reorganise the content under three heading, that would correspond to  
the "three ways to be conformant to the TEI". The consequence would  
be that when someone claims to be conformant to the TEI, he should be  
able to say along under which heading(s - there can be more then one)  
he situates himself.

The three heading would be the following one:

TEI subset
	which would cover item 1 (general principle) and subitems 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

TEI extension
	covering	 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2, 3, which I would subdivide on TEI  
supported extensions (SVG?) vs. proprietary extensions

TEI based specifications (a missing item in the document)
	any specification based on ODD that may or may not reuse existing  
TEI objects


Notes:
	item 4 - I am not sure I would really mention that as a possible TEI  
conformant option.

	item 5 - I would introduce the notion of "local conformance" since  
the two categories of subset- and extension- conformance could apply  
there.

	I would impose preserving the TEI namespace for all elements taken  
from the TEI guidelines

Comments?
Laurent

[reference: http://www.tei-c.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Conformance]