[tei-council] Tite and conformance (long)

[Lou Burnard]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Lou Burnard wrote:
> 
>> Or how about reconsidering the hastily taken decision to "promulgate" 
>> something which is clearly broken?
> 
> the only brokenness is the decision to omit the whole header
> module, which happened only in May, and was discussed
> here I recall. Before that Tite was entirely pukka,
> I promise.
> 

Indeed it was. I had in mind the broken-ness of not using namespace 
prefixes to distinguish its non-TEI bits from the rest though.