[tei-council] P5 1.10?

[Martin Holmes]

On 11-09-13 10:30 PM, Laurent Romary wrote:
> Unless we are very pragmatic and we consider that the revision mechanisms we have can make the thing evolve by itself when published. I don't think that we can reach a community consensus on all features, most of which have not yet been extensively tested within actual projects.
>
> My question to the experts is: do we have a good core that could theoretically be publishable as is?

I think so, once we've settled the naming issue. I also think the idea 
of publishing a core feature set initially, and then having the 
community work with it for a few months before having another round of 
work to finalize some of the details would work well. I don't think we 
can expect to get it absolutely right first time.

Cheers,
Martin

>
> If yes, we can make a round of review to the community (with a request that they use SF extensively, otherwise, I don't see how to sort things out). Then we finalize this in November for "immediate" publication.
>
> I also have the feeling that bringing the naming issue to the community may introduce more noise than anything else and that we need to stabilize something.
>
> Le 13 sept. 2011 à 22:42, Sebastian Rahtz a écrit :
>
>> On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:37, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>
>>> Not so.  There are, believe it or not, some experts in this particular
>>> domain who did not have a hand in either draft. I have met some --
>>> indeed was talking to two of them only last week. (They expressed, fwiw,
>>> astonishment that the current draft doesn't say anything about how you
>>> represent the size of the writing in a particular zone)
>>
>> ah well, if thats so, then we're in a for a long haul.
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA&  HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived