[tei-council] support for P4

Mon Sep 26 12:29:32 EDT 2011

No, I know we can't avoid any mention of the term "P6" leaking out there 
ever, I just think where we're specifically asking for feedback, we 
should be asking what sorts of technological advances and changes people 
want/foresee, without pre-judging the question of whether this would be 
big enough to warrant another "P" increment or not. (I'm hoping not, at 
least for a while yet.)

(For the record, my answer to John's questionnaire used the words "red 
herring" with reference to the P6 question.)

On 2011-09-26 17:17, Pierazzo, Elena wrote:
>
> On 26/09/2011 17:06, "Bodard, Gabriel"<gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk>  wrote:
>
>> Personally I'd like to downplay discussion of P6, which I don't think is
>> a useful concept at the moment. How about phrasing a question about how
>> major technological changes to and/or affecting TEI are at the
>> moment/the near future without mentioning "P6" by name?
>>
>> G
>
> Well, P6 was mentioned as one of the possible choices in the list of
> question present by John to all candidates and continuing member of the
> Council and Board. As I think this the answer will be made public, I fear
> it is already too late for that.
> E
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 2011-09-26 17:00, Laurent Romary wrote:
>>> Kind-of interfering with JU's questionnaire, but why not. We would play
>>> our role by doing this.
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:50, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>>>
>>>> I'd like to see something relating to P6:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that:
>>>>
>>>>    - The TEI should focus only on revisions to P5 for next couple of
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>>    - The TEI should begin soliciting ideas for the most substantial
>>>> changes in P6.
>>>>
>>>>    - The TEI should start working on a detailed plan for P6 immediately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> On 11-09-26 03:39 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>> Back in June Council mostly seemed to agree that the timetable I
>>>>> laid out below was sensible for de-emphasising TEI P4 a year
>>>>> before we stop supporting it in November 2012.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the next week or so I was going to post a message to TEI-L
>>>>> explaining that from November 2011 we'll be de-emphasising TEI P4
>>>>> on the website in preparation for its lack of support from
>>>>> November 2012. I was going to include a surveymonkey survey at
>>>>> the same time allowing feedback from the community to gauge the
>>>>> strength of their dependence on or desire for support of TEI P4.
>>>>> (As well as gather some other data.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Questions that occur to me to include in this survey are below,
>>>>> but if Council has any other suggestions, or corrections, let me
>>>>> know in the next few days.
>>>>>
>>>>> ====
>>>>> Do you have projects still using TEI P4 that need support?
>>>>> - I have active and ongoing projects using TEI P4 which will not
>>>>> migrate to TEI P5
>>>>> - I have active and ongoing projects using TEI P4 but I may
>>>>> migrate these to TEI P5
>>>>> - I continue to support legacy projects using TEI P4 which I
>>>>> might migrate to TEI P5
>>>>> - I continue to support legacy projects using TEI P4 which I
>>>>> won't migrate to TEI P5
>>>>> - I have legacy TEI P4 projects, but they need little support
>>>>> - I have migrated any TEI P4 projects to TEI P5
>>>>> - I have no TEI P4 projects needing support
>>>>>
>>>>> How much should the TEI-C begin de-emphasise TEI P4 on the
>>>>> website before November 2012?
>>>>> - It should only be available from the TEI Vault and not
>>>>> mentioned elsewhere
>>>>> - It should only be available from the TEI Vault but existing
>>>>> links redirected
>>>>> - It should be available from the TEI Vault but seamlessly
>>>>> mirrored in its current location
>>>>> - It should not be moved to the Vault but remain where it is
>>>>>
>>>>> Should search engines be dissuaded from indexing TEI P4?
>>>>> - TEI P4 should not be indexed and links to it not followed
>>>>> - TEI P4 should not be indexed
>>>>> - TEI P4 should continue to be indexed
>>>>> - TEI P4 should continue to be indexed and links to it followed
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you used TEI P5 for a project?
>>>>> - Yes
>>>>> - No
>>>>> - I'm about to
>>>>>
>>>>> How many TEI P4 projects do you have?
>>>>> - 0
>>>>> - 1
>>>>> - 2-5
>>>>> - 6-15
>>>>> - 16-30
>>>>> - more than 30
>>>>>
>>>>> How many TEI P5 projects do you have?
>>>>> - 0
>>>>> - 1
>>>>> - 2-5
>>>>> - 6-15
>>>>> - 16-30
>>>>> - more than 30
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you submitted a Bug or Feature Request to the TEI?
>>>>> - I have submitted both Bugs and Feature Requests directly on
>>>>> Sourceforge
>>>>> - I have submitted either a Bug or a Feature Request directly on
>>>>> Sourceforge
>>>>> - I have submitted either a Bug or a Feature Request via a TEI
>>>>> Council member or other individual
>>>>> - I have contributed to discussions on TEI-L which have informed
>>>>> Bug or Feature Requests
>>>>> - I have not contributed a Bug or Feature Request but intend to
>>>>> - I have not contributed a Bug or Feature Request
>>>>> - What are Bugs or Feature Requests?
>>>>> ====
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggestions appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> -James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14/06/11 10:04, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>>> Could I suggest that the appropriate time to have a de-emphasis
>>>>>> of TEI P4 is in November 2011.  I suggest this because that is
>>>>>> exactly one calendar year before we stop support for P4.  We
>>>>>> promised 5 years ongoing support for TEI P4 from November 2007.
>>>>>> In November 2011 we could de-emphasize it by doing the following
>>>>>> things as Sebastian suggests:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Freeze any support of it except major bugs (if we've not done
>>>>>> this already)
>>>>>> - Demote its visibility in the TEI-C Website
>>>>>> - Change the robots.txt to encourage search engines to forget
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>> - Remind people that they have a year to stop using it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In November 2012 I'd suggest that it appears only in the Vault
>>>>>> and that the TEI Guidelines page not have any mention of it. (As
>>>>>> it has no mention of other versions like TEI P3, but does have a
>>>>>> link to the TEI Archive which contains them).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Martin Holmes
>>>> University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>>> (mholmes at uvic.ca)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> --
>> Dr Gabriel BODARD
>> (Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)
>>
>> Department of Digital Humanities
>> King's College London
>> 26-29 Drury Lane
>> London WC2B 5RL
>>
>> Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
>> Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
>> Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
>>
>> http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
>> http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/