[tei-council] 2.0 release notes

[Kevin Hawkins]

How do others feel about dropping the clause "these projects were 
already dubious in practice"?  We TEI insiders already have a reputation 
for being absolutely convinced that there's a right way to encode things 
even though this is not at all apparent to novices (witness many, many 
questions and answers on TEI-L), so I'd like to put this in a more 
politic way.  So maybe just:

This may result in some projects' existing XML becoming invalid under 
the new schema, but new functionality has been introduced in the form of 
the<gi>substJoin</gi> element to cater for the more problematic 
substitutions that required the deprecated markup.

?

On 12/14/2011 8:34 AM, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> I've tried to compose such a brief paragraph, but (a) it's not brief,
> and (b) I'm not sure whether it says too much or not enough. Anybody
> like to propose a way to make it more concise?
>
> <item>A major revision of the<gi>subst</gi>  element content model has
> been made, to bring the schema and guidelines in line with what we
> believe to be good practice for this element (the only legal contents of
> <gi>subst</gi>  are now<gi>del</gi>,<gi>add</gi>). This may result in
> some projects' existing XML becoming invalid under the new schema, but
> (a) these projects were already dubious in practice, and (b) new
> functionality has been introduced in the form of the<gi>substJoin</gi>
> element to cater for the more problematic substitutions that required
> the deprecated markup.</item>