[tei-council] conformance draft

James Cummings James.Cummings at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Fri Mar 23 10:06:31 EST 2007


Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> I have to confess, the cogent arguments from
> the far side of the world are convincing me.
> Namespaced extensions it is.
> 
> I would propose that Roma suggests a namespace
> for each element you add - based on the name
> of the customization? if not, i need somewhere
> else to store it in the odd.
> 
> Given that this is the most contentious
> part of James' draft (in my mind) is this section,

Am I alone in thinking that Sebastian's train of thought was interrupted at this
point and he meant to say something more?


There seem to be more people accepting namespaces-for-new-elements so far (with
some wanting an extra schema category of 'extension-without-the-namespace').
Any other arguments against this?  One of the reasons I want us to be sure that
this is the change we want to make is because I think it is one we will have to
actively and committedly sell to the community (even if it is the right decision
and in their own interest), so I want to flush out the arguments against it.

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk



More information about the tei-council mailing list