[tei-council] Great Unified Report from the DSC

[Lou Burnard]

Wittern Christian wrote:
> 1) names/places/dates/orgs (includes trac 346, 347, 329, 307). This
>  is more or less done, involving a lot of changes in ND. It is being
>  reviewed by the Places ad hoc work group, and will be released
>  as a complete chapter revision when tested by them.
>
>   

See my mailing of last night.


> 2) witDetail/ witList/ witGroup, and charters (action 2, trac 342, 332, 314) (for LB). not
>  started.
>   

It has started -- I removed the constituents attribute and revised quite
a bit of prose

> 3) add/del/supplied issues (trac 301, 331, action 6) (for LB). not started
>
>   
input from MJD at Berlin still hasn';t been looked at: adhoc group
proposed by DPOD hasn't done anything yet
> 4) the header element for application info (trac 315). in progress by SR
>
> 5) the new chapter on what an ODD processor does (for SR). not
>  started
>
> 6) FSD Stuff
>
>   
I hope to start on this next.

> 6 	high	medium	LB	improve wording discussing use of
> 				<del> in an example transcription
> * ?? *				
>   
I think this was from Dot, and I think I have answered it. See trac
ticket on TS


> 9 	medium	low	SB	create model.headLike
>
> <quote who="SB" when="2007-06-14T01:20JST">Lou & I are conversing
> about this now; I think he expects to have this done in a few
> hours.</quote>
>
>   
Was done Weds pm but I forgot to tell Syd (I also screwed up the change
log entry so it's not evident that I did it: sorry!)


> 11 	low	high	DP	Recommend keeping $B!F(Bmachine-readable
> 				transcription$B!G(B or not
> <quote who="DP">My recommendation would be to take them out, both "machine-readable
> transcription" and "electronic version". </quote>
> <quote who="LB">I'm afraid I don't agree so we should perhaps discuss this point.</quote>
>
>   

> 12 	low	high	Eds	fix wording in description of <egXML>
> * outstanding *
>   
I dont know what this means, so until someone comes up with a proposed
rewording this isn't going to get done.

> 14 	low	high	LB	Add discussion of PIs to CO.8.2.2
> * outstanding *
>
>   
where did this come from? and why would you want to discuss PIs in the
core chapter?