[tei-council] TEI Technical Council Budget 2012

[Martin Holmes]

> We need to agree on terminology  here. I think of "roma" as meaning
> "user interface to ODD, with facilities to create and edit and odd, and
> call ODD -> XX processing". Note the "call" there. All the Roma-ish tools we
> have now (Roma web, command-line, oxgarage, oxygen) all call the same
> underlying XSLT library.   James' (d) is a rewrite of that backend library, but his
> c) is a new Roma web (probably).
>
> personally, I go for c), on the grounds that Web Roma is _definitely_ incomplete
> and has errors, and definitely  has real users, now.

That's exactly how I feel. Web Roma is most people's interface to TEI, 
when they first start to create their own project (as opposed to working 
on someone else's, where the schema is already done). The slicker and 
more reliable it is, the better the initial experience, and the more 
positive people feel towards using TEI.

Cheers,
Martin

On 12-01-12 01:12 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2012, at 00:18, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> My recollection is that we did indeed solve most of the problems.  Even
>> if there are outstanding issues about rationalization that Paul
>> Schaffner (who will be attending as a Council member) can't answer for
>> us, I imagine we could get Martin Mueller or Brian Pytlik Zillig on the
>> phone or Skype to answer those questions.  They're both only one time
>> zone away from Ann Arbor, so I can't imagine this will be difficult.
>
> I agree, it probably doesnt  need a full-scale session with MM and BPZ;
> but we really should revisit the issue. There are certainly unsolved parts of the
> equation -<signed>  is one of those. Asking MM/BPZ to test 2.0.1 on their
> conversions now would be important.
>
>>> d) Another idea was to try to fund an entirely new processing
>>> implementation of ODD2+ that is completely independent of the existing
>>> XSLT. But this is problematic to budget.
>>
>> You mean fund a complete rewrite of Roma rather than a better Roma, as
>> in ©?
>
> We need to agree on terminology  here. I think of "roma" as meaning
> "user interface to ODD, with facilities to create and edit and odd, and
> call ODD ->  XX processing". Note the "call" there. All the Roma-ish tools we
> have now (Roma web, command-line, oxgarage, oxygen) all call the same
> underlying XSLT library.   James' (d) is a rewrite of that backend library, but his
> c) is a new Roma web (probably).
>
> personally, I go for c), on the grounds that Web Roma is _definitely_ incomplete
> and has errors, and definitely  has real users, now.
>
> --
> Stormageddon Rahtz
> Head of Information and Support Group
> Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>