[tei-council] conformance draft

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Lou Burnard wrote:
>
> 1. The definition of "recommended practice" used to have a third point:
>
> "all textual features which the guidelines recommend be captured are 
> in fact encoded. "
> which James removed presumably because he could think of no case where 
> the Guidelines actually  makes recommendations about the level of 
> encoding to be applied (i.e. where it suggests that you really ought 
> to mark up paragraphs, say, or lines in verse)
I confess it all. It was me what removed that sentence. for the reason 
you suggest. It just
begs the question "yeah, so what are they, then?".

>
> 4. The suggestion that a sourceDesc element is no longer required 
> seems unwise to me.  If a document is "born digital" the fact should 
> be stated, and the sourceDesc is the place to do it.
if a document has no <sourceDesc>, then its born digital. QED. Its just 
silly in practice to
force me to _say_ so on every document I write, especially since I 
always leave it blank....

(apropos of which, I can't remember if James avoided this trap? does he 
say that
the mandatory elenents cannot be empty?
>
> 9. I don't like section 1.7 much: it makes me feel uneasy. We are not 
> in a position to tell funding bodies what they should or shouldn't 
> think, and even if we were it shouldn't be a topic for this chapter. 
> We ought to be clear first about what *we* mean by TEI conformance, 
> and although I think this discussion is clarifying that quite a lot, 
> we ain't there yet. Issues of "superior quality" and "greater academic 
> scrutiny" surely relate to matters which are out of scope here (see 
> for example my point 1 above)

it could be said that this section is a bit patronizing. I didn't mind 
it when I read it,
but if you object, it doesnt damage the chapter to remove it.


-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431