[tei-council] mess up over tei_all.xsd

Lou Burnard 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 mailing list