[tei-council] 2.4.1 or 2.5.0?

[James Cummings]

On 24/07/13 15:32, Hugh Cayless wrote:
> Should you also fix the example that's in there now, and has an incorrect @match?

Yes, if you (Gabby), could fix the example (especially if adding 
an additional one) that'd be good.


-James

>
> 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
>


-- 
Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford