[tei-council] 2.0 release notes

[Gabriel Bodard]

I was hoping someone might tone down my less politic manner. ;-) Please 
go ahead.

On 2011-12-14 14:40, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> 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>

-- 
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/