mholmes at uvic.ca
Mon Aug 22 13:00:07 EDT 2011
On 11-08-22 07:54 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 22/08/11 15:46, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> the downside for 3. is that it allows
>> in an interleavy sort of way, but what the heck, its no worse than many another thing.
>> would it be ok for leave this until the end of the week, and I implement it then if
>> no-one has raised further objections?
> At present, the P5 build fails because licence is inaccessible, so
> according to the (unwritten) rule book, someone should either do the
> implementation a bit sooner than the end of the week, or revert the
> addition of licence. Martin was looking at this earlier so maybe he'd
> like to comment? Implementation is just a matter of adding the new
> class, and adding licence to it.
I broke the P5 build by adding the <exemplum> elements with examples of
<licence>, so it could be temporarily unbroken by commenting those out
until we've made our minds up. I'm happy to do that if necessary, but
personally I think we have more chance of getting the whole ticket
resolved if we keep working on it. My vote is for Sebastian to do what
he says above.
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
More information about the tei-council