[tei-council] 2.4.1 or 2.5.0?

[Hugh Cayless]

Should you also fix the example that's in there now, and has an incorrect @match?

On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:29 , Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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/
> 
> -- 
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived