[tei-council] Amber items for discussion on Monday: stake your claim now!

Gabriel Bodard gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Thu Dec 3 06:05:43 EST 2009


I was about to volunteer for this one (and the sister FR, @ref on 
'material'), since they really belong together, but I have no objection 
to Dot taking them if she wants them both. ;-)

In which case (and since I probably shouldn't lay claim to 'certainty' 
either, unless there are no other volunteers), I'll take:

2794512 |Move <space> to core module | 2009-05-20
2531384 |Rationalise application of @target | 2009-01-23

(Unless anyone has their heart set on them.)

Dot Porter a écrit :
> I'll take:
> 
> 2811239 |new element 'object' | 2009-06-24
> 
> Dot
> 
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> May I suggest that we spend as much as possible of our next call
>> trying to make some progress on some of the 20 or so outstanding Amber
>> tickets, listed below in reverse date order. (For new members, an
>> Amber ticket typically describes an issue where the Council has not
>> yet reached clear consensus as to to what should be done, if anything)
>>
>> I'll try to post a brief comments on some of these before the
>> weekend, but in the meantime can I ask for volunteers to speak to some
>> of the tickets listed below? Please tell the list as soon as you've
>> chosen your ticket though, so that we don't all try to deal with the
>> same one! If each council member chooses just one topic from the lists
>> below, we should be able to make a good deal of headway.
>>
>> What you need to do is go to http://bit.ly/56dzWs (which shd resolve
>> to our sourceforge feature request tracker), choose a ticket that
>> interests you, click on its description, and read the comments. In
>> some cases (2877940 is one) you may also need to refer back to
>> preceding discussion on the tei-council or tei-l list. Either way, you
>> should aim for a clear understanding of what the issues are, even if
>> you are not certain what the right course of action should be.
>>
>> For reasons now lost in the mists of time, we distinguish "feature
>> requests" from "bug reports". In practice, people don't remember the
>> difference, but we still have two lists to deal with. Here's the list
>> of open "feature requests" in the amber group:
>>
>> 2877940 |Revisit use of @target, @match on certainty, precision, etc. |
>> 2009-10-13
>> 2862151 |Allow certainty etc. in "empty" elements | 2009-09-19
>> 2859355 |<subst> should permit textual data | 2009-09-15
>> 2859183 |Make all milestoneLike elements spanning | 2009-09-15
>> 2834511 |Add more elements to att.spanning with schematron constraint |
>> 2009-08-09
>> 2834505 |@cert on choice and model.choicePart | 2009-08-09
>> 2830815 |vesta: convert multiple schemata | 2009-08-01
>> 2812634 |@docStatus on <edition> | 2009-06-26
>> 2811239 |new element 'object' | 2009-06-24
>> 2811234 |add @ref to 'material' | 2009-06-24
>> 2798963 |add @role to author | 2009-05-30
>> 2794512 |Move <space> to core module | 2009-05-20
>> 2783323 |add @from and @to to choice | 2009-04-29
>> 2728068 |suggested values for <relatedItem at type | 2009-04-03
>> 2531384 |Rationalise application of @target | 2009-01-23
>> 2493417 |<idno> coverage | 2009-01-08
>>
>> And here's the list of open "bug reports"
>>
>> 2900430  |data type of @scribe and @script | 2009-11-19
>> 2881416 |meeting as child of <titleStmt> |2009-10-18
>> 2714682 |biblScope should be in Imprint or not? |2009-03-26
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/


More information about the tei-council mailing list