lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Mon Jun 1 12:57:58 EDT 2009
There having been no dissenting voices to this proposition, and it being
a lot easier to implement, I am now planning to go ahead and change the
definition of data.numeric to permit things like
James Cummings wrote:
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> This was indeed one of the options I proposed in my email. But I
>>> wondered whether expanding the meaning (or reducing the constraints)
>>> associated with "data.numeric" might not be considered to be
>>> flouting the Birnbaum doctrine...
>> not at all. call it data.extendednumeric if you like. Birnbaum does
>> not disallow expansion
> And just to remind people, since this is occasionally trotted out as
> an excuse, that said doctrine does *not* prohibit breaking backwards
> compatibility. In fact it says: "Council should instead feel
> authorized to break backward compatibility when Council concludes that
> the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages." So it is
> really just a question of whether we think doing so outweighs the
> disadvantages of not doing so.
> On the question of data.numeric, I see little problem in extending it
> (or adding an additional datatype as suggested above).
More information about the tei-council