[tei-council] removing and renaming XML files

[Piotr Bański]

On 20/04/12 21:24, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 1:41 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> On 20/04/12 14:14, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>> On 20/04/12 08:33, stuart yeates wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>> I would also like to rename:
>>>>
>>>> P5/Source/Guidelines/*/DI-PrintDictionaries.xml
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>> P5/Source/Guidelines/*/DI-Dictionaries.xml
>>>>
>>>> because this chapter covers born-digital dictionaries too.
>>
>>
>> I don't think changing the filename of this chapter is warranted as yet.
>> There was some discussion about extending its coverage so as to deliver
>> more specifically on the promise made in its first chapter that its
>> content could also be applied to non-print dictionaries, but so far that
>> extension  hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Lou, do you mean "the promise made in the first section of this chapter"?
> 
> The title of the chapter given in the HTML and PDF versions of the 
> Guidelines is already "Dictionaries", not "Print Dictionaries", so I 
> think Piotr is suggesting renaming the file to match the human-readable 
> form actually in use.

Got it: quoting accident. Lou quoted my reply to Stuart, but without my
response, and Kevin ascribed Stuart's idea to me.

Here's the summary, as I see it:
* Stuart suggests changing the filename
* I understand the reason for the change, but I'm afraid that the links
from outside to the published chapter of the P5 will break. I'm wrong
(see below)
* Sebastian says, roughly "well, if it's really necessary..."
* Lou says "not yet"

I forgot that the URL
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/DI.html

doesn't use the long name anyway, so there would be no problem with
outside links even if the chapter name were to changes already in P5.

I think that the DI chapter *is* used as guidelines for encoding
electronic dictionaries (in the "lexical" view), exactly because nothing
better exists. So the "Print" in the filename is indeed misleading, but
the question is, who does it potentially mislead? If it only misleads
us, the cost is relatively low, because we're just several people who
will now remember the naming issue well, if we don't already use "DI" as
the identifier.

I'm rather lukewarm on this issue -- I'm glad that the title of this
chapter got changed (in 2007?), and the underlying filename doesn't
bother me too much (unless I've missed something important in the
summary above).

Best,

  P.