[tei-council] Fwd: Re: 2.0 release notes

[Kevin Hawkins]

Lou has revised.  I like his version.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [tei-council] 2.0 release notes
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:20:21 +0000
From: Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
To: Kevin Hawkins <kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info>

Good point. I've revised this para to read as follows

"The content model of the <gi>subst</gi> element was revised 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>). At the same time, a new element <gi>substJoin</gi>
element  has been added to deal with more complex situations. It is
regretted that this may result in some existing documents becoming
invalid under the new schema."


This also fits in better with the comment at the end of the readme about
the birnbaum doctrine


On 14/12/11 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>