[tei-council] roadmap / project plan for Roma and ODD processing

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Peter Boot wrote:

>> The development of the desktop Vesta processor in Java for ODD (and
>> other TEI XML) files necessitated a fork in the
> 
> Maybe you need to argue that Vesta is necessary and useful, otherwise it
> is not clear what people stand to gain from all this.

well, true. I am not 100% convinced myself

but adhering to the later version of the Recommendation has
to be _a priori_ desirable, I suppose.

>> underlying XSLT stylesheets. The Saxon XSLT processor used does not
>> support the extension features using by the ODD processing. This
>> meant that the stylesheets had to be rewritten to use XSLT 2.0;
> 
> You don't explain why you had to use Saxon.

I had to use a Java processor; SFAICT, Xalan does not
support the extension features I used in XSLT 1.

>> for processing ODD is created, using the same Java library developed
>> for Erewhon, and the new Roma
> 
> What is Erewhon?

oh, sorry, I meant Vesta

> Should we also ask what type of functionality people are missing in
> Roma, or what people hate or like about Roma?

I am slightly reluctant to open a can of worms there and raise
expectations; but it's a fair point. My default plan was
to get back to the state of the current Roma, and then open
it for changes. but revisiting functionaliy on day 1 also
a good way to proceed.
-- 
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente