[tei-council] mess up over tei_all.xsd
lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Wed Mar 2 09:19:16 EST 2011
On 02/03/11 14:11, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2011, at 14:10, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> um, I dont quite follow your reasoning here. Surely for any incidental
>> fixes to get included at 1.9.1. is a good thing?
> in a way, yes. but not if they are of the type which should make it 1.10, as
> that would be confusing
I assume what you mean is we shouldn't sneak in major changes like --
oh I dunno -- genetic criticism support without incrementing the second
(as opposed to the third) digit.
By the way, are we sure that the next number after 1.9 is 1.10? I quite
fancy 1.A myself, but that's probably because I spent my formative years
reading hexadecimal dumps
More information about the tei-council