[tei-council] version 2.0.1 p5subset.xml states "edition 2.0.0"

[Martin Holmes]

On 12-01-18 07:53 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 18/01/12 15:38, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, James Cummings wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/01/12 12:54, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>>> 2&    3 both have the problem that is bothering Sebastian, but 3 is of
>>>>> course much worse in this case (2 being in practice (a) easy and (b)
>>>>> relatively minor inconvenience to anybody). I don't suppose you can
>>>>> write a rewrite rule for file fragments, can you?
>>>> yes, given careful thought, I think we could trap #msad and rewrite to #mssad.
>>>> I'm not volunteering, mind, you can spend whole days understanding
>>>> Apache mod_rewrite :-}
>>>
>>> Any disagreements that this is the right course of action?
>>
>> If I had to vote, I'd go with 'do nothing.' People who filter content
>> have to know that the filters are imperfect--that they may be trapping
>> dolphins with their catch of tuna.
>>
>
> I would also vote for doing nothing. I really dont see any good reason
> to over-react in this way, especially since (if I understand correctly)
> this problem was rectified by the filtering agency within 48 hours of
> our reporting the problem. We would introduce a whole load of broken
> links to counter a non-existent problem which only ever affected a small
> number of people. If we are serious about wanting to rationalise the
> identifiers, then we should do it properly, once for all, not in a piece
> meal haphazard fashion. That just looks silly.

The EasyList maintainer fixed the problem immediately, but the Fanboy 
list maintainer has ignored my false-positive report completely (and has 
meanwhile been updating his/her block list regularly). So there probably 
are users out there still suffering from this problem, and other block 
lists we don't know about that include it.

That's why I like #3 as a long-term option. Someday some ad company 
might decide to prefix all of its ids with "tei_". However, in that 
case, we would at least see a consistent and dramatic effect, and we 
could take more concerted steps to get the false-positives fixed, as 
well as recommending publicly that users avoid specific lists we know 
have the problem. When it's just a question of a single div in a single 
chapter, it's not worth worrying about, I don't think.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)