[tei-council] 2.4.1 or 2.5.0?

[Gabriel Bodard]

Okay done. As I note on the ticket, I agree with Lou that discussion of 
these attributes is needed in the guidelines, and I haven't had time to 
add that. (And I dare say won't before Friday.) I leave the ticket open 
as it remains a priority.

Should we maybe include Thomas Carlson's example in the elementSpec, as 
a start? That seems safe enough...

G

On 2013-07-24 15:22, James Cummings wrote:
> I guess I don't mind if Gabby commits the change quickly. As
> Sebastian is doing the release on Friday that leaves us all
> tomorrow for extra proofreading!
>
> Sebastian is on holiday today and thursday, so probably
> can't/won't comment and is planning to do the release on Friday.
>    This leaves plenty of time for people to point out errors in
> the generation of the outputs. Martin can attest that I made good
> with my promise of a Tunnock's dark chocolate covered caramel
> wafer last time for finding lots of typos. (In case that
> encourages you!)
>
> Last release we noticed, during the release period, that a typo
> meant the links to the translated versions on the index.html
> pages were broken (fixed during release).
>
> Please do have a look at the outputs at
> http://bits.nsms.ox.ac.uk:8080/jenkins/ and under
> http://bits.nsms.ox.ac.uk:8080/jenkins/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/release/
> and check that all web pages work as expected, all the schemas
> and generated content do what they are supposed to.
>
> -James
>
>
> On 24/07/13 14:39, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>> I think if we do 2.4.1 this week (as it now seems), then 2.5.0 should
>> wait until the next cycle, probably at the end of the year--when we'll
>> have a bunch of new interesting things to include, as well as just
>> correcting the oversight in `<precision>`.
>>
>> There's still stuff to talk about re responsibility, relation and match,
>> for example.
>>
>> G
>>
>> On 2013-07-24 13:40, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>> Well, this is a moot point as we're now frozen and it's not in. But
>>> FWIW, I think both GB and LB are right, so I'm in favor of
>>> a) adding att.ranging to <precision>, and
>>> b) not doing so now, so we can make sure the examples and discussion
>>>       make sense, and consider deprecating @degree
>>>
>>> We can make a 2.5.0 release in a week or two, eh?
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
Boris Karloff Building
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/