[tei-council] Monday ticket agenda

[Sebastian Rahtz]

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.

--
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