[tei-council] the xpointer comments

[Lou Burnard]

Yeah, I thought I was subscribed to that list too, but this is the first 
I've heard of any messages on it.

On 23/10/12 21:33, Piotr Banski wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for this info. I've either got a kick out of the list (it's
> happened to me in the past, for excess bounces off my free server), or
> I've managed to overlook that thread completely (been there as well).
> Will verify.
>
>     P.
>
>
>
> On 23/10/12 17:45, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> We have had some discussion on the TEI-SOM list following the Oxford
>> meeting, starting here:
>>
>> <http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1209&L=tei-som&F=&S=&P=66>
>>
>> Gaby asked me to summarise my issues with it, which I did, and Hugh
>> responded in some detail. In that discussion, I think this is the
>> clearest statement of my position:
>>
>> <http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1209&L=tei-som&F=&S=&P=5669>
>>
>> and Hugh's response to that answers some of those objections, but
>> largely by saying that much of what I worry about would be
>> implementation-dependent and outside the scope of the specification. The
>> implication seems to be that what you get when you process one of these
>> pointers will differ radically depending on the implementation; that
>> seems to me to be a fundamental problem, but clearly Hugh doesn't think so.
>>
>> Syd said he was going to look at the proposal, but it looks like he
>> hasn't had time to do so yet. I also think his input is essential. I'm
>> looking forward to seeing what comes out of the TEI meeting (which I
>> can't attend, unfortunately).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 12-10-23 06:02 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>> I think the consensus in Oxford was that PB, LB, and GB would respond to
>>> the draft proposal in Google Docs so that HC and/or others could submit
>>> a revised proposal for Council to consider again.  However, if PB, LB,
>>> and GB feel they can't respond to the draft in its current state, or
>>> could do so more effectively if they just talked it over in person with
>>> Hugh Cayless and Syd Bauman in person -- and if we know that they'll be
>>> in College Station -- then I see no reason not to discuss it in person
>>> with them instead.
>>>
>>> In any case, it's obviously not going to happen by the end of October.
>>>
>>> --K.
>>>
>>> On 10/23/12 7:50 AM, Piotr Banski wrote:
>>>> In the wiki, at the top of the Actions page, we say:
>>>>
>>>> "Council members (e.g. PB, LB and GB) will add comments directly to HC’s
>>>> original proposal by the end of October, and then we will be happy to
>>>> receive any further drafts of it."
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Oxford2012-Actions
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering: can we move this to the end of November, and first hear
>>>> what Hugh has to say about that at the TEI-MM, and discuss it, at least
>>>> in part, there on the spot?
>>>>
>>>> I'm now taking on my tickets, then it's release time, then the
>>>> preparation for the MM talk and the SIG meeting (and I'm flying to the
>>>> States very soon, it's a joint work trip), and I just can't see the
>>>> possibility of getting down to preparing detailed remarks on this right
>>>> now (there's the day job to be handled before the MM trip, too).
>>>>
>>>> On another note, I would really like to see Syd involved in this -- I
>>>> believe his input to be quite crucial, given that he was the author of
>>>> the original TEI XPointer schemes.
>>>>
>>>> I am not even sure of the status of Hugh's proposal in the googledoc --
>>>> is this something submitted to the Council to act on, or is that an
>>>> abstract of his MM talk? If the former were the case, I could understand
>>>> why the Council would delegate its three members to handle it, but it
>>>> seems to me to be a sketch of a proposal only, and so I don't understand
>>>> why we should act on something that isn't in fact finalised before Hugh
>>>> presents it at the MM:
>>>>
>>>> http://idhmc.tamu.edu/teiconference/program/papers/session-1b/
>>>>
>>>> So once again: can we say
>>>> a) please submit a concrete proposal
>>>> b) "end of November at the earliest"
>>>> , there?
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, it seems to me that we may act on this as fellow researchers
>>>> and members of a WG, but not really in our capacity as members of the
>>>> Council.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>        P.
>>>>