[tei-council] for 28 Feb. conf call: background on Best Practice for TEI in Libraries

[James Cummings]

On 19/02/12 16:57, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> So we'd end up with the TEI  Consortium owning some customizations
> labelled "Best Practice" which contradicted its own Guidelines. That would
> be pretty weird!

It does strike me as weird as well, and I can understand why 
people might be confused as to how something can be 
'non-Conformant' and 'Best Practice' at the same time.

> But seriously, isn't the question of whether the TEIC should take over
> maintenance of these BPs something the TEI Board
> should be debating, not the Council? obviously if the Board
> accepted the task then the Council could work out the technicalities.

This is, if memory serves, what happened with TEI Tite (which 
would serve as an example of another non-conformant TEI extension 
which we at least provide as an exemplar if not have shared 
custody of).

If the idea of the council maintaining this BP was presented to 
the Board, I would not feel I was doing my duty if I did not 
present the Council's position on this to the Board. (Nor would 
the Board correspondingly be doing their duty if they didn't ask 
for the technical perspective of the Council if substantial 
technical queries were raised.) In that case I would only have to 
return to the Council list in an attempt to get a consensus in 
any case. I think it is best if this goes to the Board that the 
Council position (if indeed we are able to agree on one) is 
already understood. If we aren't able to agree that this would be 
a good or bad thing, then equally the lack of consensus should be 
mentioned to the Board to inform their own discussions.

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev
Oxford University Computing Services
University of Oxford