[tei-council] Monday ticket agenda
mholmes at uvic.ca
Sun Feb 7 18:02:35 EST 2010
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 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 am following his lead, but including all my own punctuation. This is
one of the things I'll talk about in Dublin.
>> 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.
Perhaps the existence of a few desirable changes that would break
More information about the tei-council