[tei-council] Monday ticket agenda
sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Sun Feb 7 14:59:27 EST 2010
On 7 Feb 2010, at 19:50, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I favour having it in both places -- If it's no longer allowed as a
> child of <imprint>, I'll have hundreds of documents and a huge amount of
> XSLT to fix. :-)
oh well, yes, there is that small problem!
> On the larger issue, though, I don't really know what <imprint> is
> doing, exactly. One reason I'm beginning to move away from <biblStruct>
> in favour of <bibl>
you worry me. I hope you are not following the model of our
Great Leader From France, who has had in the past a habit
of filling a <bibl> with database-like markup and being surprised
when no punctuation is generated. If you do <bibl>, you're in charge
of all the formatting. <biblStruct> is much more robust. IMHO.
> I'm never sure why some elements
> are direct children of <biblStruct> and some show up in <imprint>.
I'd probably agree, if we were starting from scratch
> As a newbie, I realize I don't know whether, or under what conditions,
> changes to P5 that break backward compatibility would be allowed. Is
> there a policy on this? I would tend to assume that any changes to P5
> should maintain backward compabitility with previous iterations of P5,
> while anything that would break compatibility should be moved forward
> into the plans for P6. Is that how it works?
the <soCalled>Birnbaum doctrine</soCalled> states that we should
never break backward compatibility - except when we really have to.
It's not forbidden, merely to be taken very seriously.
There _are_ no plans for P6, it should be noted. Its entirely unclear
to me what would prompt us to cross that Rubicon.
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
More information about the tei-council