TEI Council Conference Call of Mon, 29 Nov 04
All times are UTC unless otherwise noted.
Present were SB, DB, LB, JC, MD, DD, JF, SR, SS, NS, JW, PW, and CW. Not present were AB, LR, and EV.
Contents
- Review of the minutes from the call
- MM Baltimore report
- Sanskrit
- Meetings
- Work-groups
- xml colon thing
- SO W 09
- style-sheets
- biblItem
Review of the minutes from the call
- Revision of content model for <choice> LB reported that some progress has been made, and he thinks the action completed.
- Post updated version of SO W 09 to Council Done.
- Check in updated version of SA SB reports that this action was deliberately deferred due to
- Finalize draft of MS MD reports that the draft has been completed, but has not been announced anywhere. It was noted that there has already been some feedback, as it was announced as part of the Members' Meeting MS SIG report. Council agreed that once the draft was publicized, comments on it should receive rapid attention from the MS taskforce, and urged MD to announce draft far and wide immediately.
- propose a method of managing SF feature requests so as to facilitate gathering of input from Council members SB reported that LB has gone through artifacts and assigned priority. LB expressed doubt as to whether this was actually a good idea or not; suggesting that Council members should feel free to look at and comment on any items in which they were personally interested. It was suggested that all Council members should sign up for Sourceforge user accounts, such that they could receive notification of updates to feature requests. SB thought that after signing up, Council members may have to sign up for notifications on an artifact-by-artifact basis.
MM Baltimore report
LB reported that a general SIGs report, some individual SIGs, and some talks are now available on the web; SS believes the other SIGs should be reporting soon. LB said the meeting was well attended, and lots of good discussions were had over lunches & in hallways, etc.
LB stated that prior to the Members' Meeting there had been an expression of concern over the conversion of legacy data to P5, and that in response to this he and SR had created a ‘P4 compatibility mode’ on the flight over, which was presented to membership. The membership present had expressed an overall feeling of ‘why would I want one of those?’. There seemed to be general agreement that we should keep ‘P4 compatibility mode’ in the background, and bring it out if and when there is a call for it.
Sanskrit
- Schematron (either included as part of P5 or used separately)
- raw schema (which would require significant changes to ODD)
- syntactic sugar
Meetings
With the upcoming departure of DD, the Council needs a new host for conference calls. JW said he could host, using the same mechanism PW has used in the past. This turns out to be expensive for Europeans, but CW feels it is still probably less expensive overall, and so graciously accepts JW's offer.
xml colon thing
Yes, Council agreed on use of xml:id (declared as W3C suggests, we think ID) and xml:lang (declared where possible as xsd:language, using the ‘Ghent improved Nancy Hack’, i.e. an ident on <language> ).
SO W 09
SR raised a concern over the inconsistency of the target attribute. It was pointed out that this inconsistency is just a duplication of what is currently in P4, where all targets attributes are IDREFS, but not all target attributes are IDREF, some are IDREFS. SB thought there was a reason for some, if not all, of these apparent discrepancies, but could not recall them. Council agreed that this should be looked into with an eye to making names consistent.
Council agreed on the substantive issues brought up by SO W 09, with the exception of the details of the new xpointer schemes, concerning which discussion was deferred.
style-sheets
Council raised a concern that SR's stylesheets are mistakenly viewed by TEI community as intended to be exemplary. JF suggested making the domain space of TEI stylesheets larger, to provide more examples, perhaps through a contest or call for submissions from the TEI community. JW agrees.
<biblItem>
It was suggested that a small group look at the broader view around this issue, and recommend the best approach in general. Specifically to consider whether some other standard is sufficient, and if not, to examine the current proposal and perhaps recommend changes.
It was noted that we do not know who, other than PT, participated in the creation of the current proposal.
