[tei-council] Draft Roma Replacement Specification

[Fabio Ciotti]

In my experience in the call for tender it would be nice to leave the
space for the proposal of ideas and new features without being too
restrictive with the specs. I agree that we need a tool that have at
least all the features of Roma + 1,  but in general developer work
better if they are stimulated to contribute in the modelling of the
system.
f.

2013/11/9 James Cummings <James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk>:
>
> Agreed. It mostly started as a list of minimal things that the
> current Roma does and being non-prescriptive is probably better.
> But equally we want to make sure anything we fund gives the
> community something useful and viable in the long-term.
>
> We could give more instructions on what to include in a bid (e.g.
> make them come up with the list of features that are
> included/excluded, etc.).
>
> -James
>
> On 09/11/13 12:16, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> I have had a hack, and added some comments. I think there is a danger in general
>> of constraining people too much by saying that they have to effectively
>> copy current Roma. More freedom for them to propose new ways of working is better,
>> in my view. I have tried to indicate places where I think this applies
>>
>> I have also added a section at the end of grey areas which are not mentioned. We have
>> to decide whether support of these is mandatory or not.
>> --
>> Sebastian Rahtz
>> Director (Research) of Academic IT
>> University of Oxford IT Services
>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
> Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
> --
> 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