[tei-council] word-dividing

[Daniel Paul O'Donnell]

Since this is just an example (and hence non-normative, however much 
people may copy it in practice), I don't see the reason for issuing a 
rush release 1.4.2. It sounds like consensus is building around midWord 
or inWord (I like the first). But this is something that can be changed 
for the next release. There is no backwards compatibility to break here: 
the vocabulary is not controlled and no official sheets or guidelines 
modules are going to depend on the precise value of this attribute.

So this is a question of aesthetics rather than syntax or even 
semantics, IMO. Let's let it go and/or take a vote on what we'd like to 
get in the next release of the guidelines. But surely this shouldn't 
_drive_ the next release!

-dan

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Elena Pierazzo wrote:
>   
>>  as the 
>> Guidelines are already published with the recommendation for 'nobreak' 
>> is there room for any further discussion/modification? This is a genuine 
>> question, meaning: can we now change what has already been published?
>>
>>     
>
> of course, we can make a release 1.4.2 which changes
> anything you like. It does not affect the schemas at all,
> its just a sentence in the prose.
>
> You'll make me pretty unhappy if you request 1.4.1 now,
> mind :-}
>
>
>   

-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
University of Lethbridge

Chair and CEO, Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org/)
Co-Chair, Digital Initiatives Advisory Board, Medieval Academy of America
President-elect (English), Society for Digital Humanities/Société pour l'étude des médias interactifs (http://sdh-semi.org/)
Founding Director (2003-2009), Digital Medievalist Project (http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/)

Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191 (non-confidental)
Home Page: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/