[tei-council] Monday ticket agenda

[Martin Holmes]

Hi Sebastian,

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 
backward compatibility?

Cheers,
Martin