[tei-council] Fwd: bug report for Council, if you like

[James Cummings]

On 05/10/10 18:45, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 5 Oct 2010, at 18:39, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>
>> I think my instinct would be to go with (b) and, as Sebastian says,
>> worry about paths when and if they're needed. But perhaps the easiest is
>> just to say definitely not (a) (so no validation), but allow individual
>> implementations to assume (b) or (c) as appropriate.
>
>
> I'd go with this - ie let sleeping dogges lie. Much the easiest solution.

I'm amenable to that.  Though I should think at note should make this clear.

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings
Research Technologies Service, University of Oxford