[tei-council] conformance draft

[Conal Tuohy]

Syd Bauman wrote:

> I am not at all sure it is a good idea that TEI require that new
> elements be in a separate namespace. I think that doing so

> * sends the wrong message politically -- that if you create a new
>   element, somehow you're not a member of the same TEI club

I am not sure I understand the "politics" there. 

Will people be discouraged from using TEI if we ask them not to add new
names in the TEI namespace? Is that what you're implying? Will they
think we are arrogant to delimit the official TEI vocabulary?

Perhaps requiring a separate namespace for additions will actually
encourage customisers to harmonise and unify their customisations with
other similar customisations, so that the customisation may eventually
be accepted into the TEI and moved into the TEI namespace. To my mind
that would be a very good political message to send.

Con