[tei-council] vote on NH
Sebastian Rahtz
sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Tue Oct 2 04:05:34 EDT 2007
Syd Bauman wrote:
> Whether the chapter gets its re-arrangement before or after 1.0, what
> we really should be doing for 1.1, IMHO, is to
>
> * have NH generate a module that includes at a minimum
> next=, prev=, and part=
>
> * address what bits belong in SA, and what belongs in NH
>
> * commit to supporting one form (or at most two forms) of segment
> boundary delimiters in at least a limited fashion -- this may well
> require work in TD to match
>
> * include a section discussing that the use of milestones (<pb>,
> <cb>, <lb>, <milestone>) as discussed in CO is a method of handling
> a particular kind of overlap
>
>
Remember the rules we set about what P5.1 could
and could not do, as opposed to P6. Some of these sail
close to the wind, ie moving things between modules.
This list is fine and interesting, but why on earth has
it not all been addressed at some point in the last year?
If we set another deadline of (say) May 2008 for P5 1.1,
what would ensure it got done by then?
--
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
More information about the tei-council
mailing list