[tei-council] Supplying default namespace with TEI Tite

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Lou Burnard wrote:
>
> Maintainingf a "Tite Lite" in tandem with "Tite" does not appear on 
> the above list, which is why I don't think it is meant to be taken as 
> a serious suggestion.
I was thinking that the one ODD could define both schemas, with some 
jiggery pokery.
>
> I agree with the formulation of the choices tho. I don't like the 
> third one at all. The second one seems perfectly OK. The first one 
> might also be OK, but the case has not been made.
>
the second is where we are now. I agree, the first is the easiest and 
most sustainable.

for the record, we are talking about <b>, <i>, <ul>, <sub>, <sup>, 
<smcap>, <cols>
and <ornament>, where the first six are shortcuts for <hi>.

its all predicated on a model of capture companies recording data as <sup>
and then being unable to transform it to <hi rend="sup"> before they
finally hand it back to the person who paid for it :-}


me, I've never bought into the idea!

-- 
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