P6-dev - Revision history

Mholmes at 18:03, 3 November 2017

2017-11-03T18:03:16Z

Kshawkin at 15:33, 29 September 2016

2016-09-29T15:33:00Z

Kshawkin: GitHub label renamed

2016-09-29T15:32:31Z

GitHub label renamed

Pstadler: added link to p6 label at GitHub

2015-11-24T12:45:13Z

added link to p6 label at GitHub

Schassan at 22:34, 27 October 2014

2014-10-27T22:34:31Z

Stuartyeates: add

2014-10-27T06:55:43Z

add

Stuartyeates: tweak

2014-10-27T06:54:19Z

tweak

Stuartyeates: add standards

2014-10-27T06:53:59Z

add standards

Kshawkin: link to explanation of Pure ODD

2014-10-27T01:55:48Z

link to explanation of Pure ODD

Mholmes at 14:57, 24 October 2014

2014-10-24T14:57:36Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6.  Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on sourceforge first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml
+This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6.  Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on GitHub first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml
 With the new (as of Nov. 2015) GitHub issue tracker, TEI Council collects P6 issues with the label [https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Status%3A+Reconsider+for+P6%22 Reconsider for P6]
 * Module fragmentation, e.g. http://purl.org/tei/fr/3490054 asked for splitting off all dateTime related elements into a small module of its own. Ann Arbor 2012 face to face meeting decided this kind of fragmentation should be postponed until P6.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 29 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6. Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on sourceforge first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml		This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6. Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on sourceforge first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml

−	With the new (as of Nov. 2015) GitHub issue tracker, TEI Council collects P6 issues with the label [https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Status%3A+Reconsider+for+P6%22]	+	With the new (as of Nov. 2015) GitHub issue tracker, TEI Council collects P6 issues with the label [https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Status%3A+Reconsider+for+P6%22 Reconsider for P6]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 29 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6. Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on sourceforge first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml		This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6. Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on sourceforge first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml

−	With the new (as of Nov. 2015) GitHub issue tracker, TEI Council collects P6 issues with the label [https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/~~labels/postponed~~%~~20for~~%~~20P6"postponed~~ for ~~p6"~~]	+	With the new (as of Nov. 2015) GitHub issue tracker, TEI Council collects P6 issues with the label [https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Status%3A+Reconsider+for+P6%22]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 24 November 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6. Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on sourceforge first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml		This page is a place to record ideas which people feel are not appropriate for addition to the TEI P5 Guidelines (perhaps because they break backwards compatibility so extremely) but which they think should be recorded for reconsideration during development of the next major revision of P6. Things here should probably have had a FR submitted on sourceforge first and been turned down for P5. One when we should be thinking about P6 see the final paragraph of the Birnbaum Doctrine: http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw09.xml

		+	With the new (as of Nov. 2015) GitHub issue tracker, TEI Council collects P6 issues with the label [https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/labels/postponed%20for%20P6"postponed for p6"]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:34, 27 October 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:

	* Module fragmentation, e.g. http://purl.org/tei/fr/3490054 asked for splitting off all dateTime related elements into a small module of its own. Ann Arbor 2012 face to face meeting decided this kind of fragmentation should be postponed until P6.		* Module fragmentation, e.g. http://purl.org/tei/fr/3490054 asked for splitting off all dateTime related elements into a small module of its own. Ann Arbor 2012 face to face meeting decided this kind of fragmentation should be postponed until P6.
		+	** Would it be an idea to group all elements that describe ''entities'', if a new element ''object'' would be established? By doing this, the dateTime related elements were splitted "naturally".

	* Consider placing a restriction on the simultaneous use of @url and @facs on <graphic> (see Council list discussion 2012-06-20).		* Consider placing a restriction on the simultaneous use of @url and @facs on <graphic> (see Council list discussion 2012-06-20).

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ** ''None of the bibliographic elements exactly match any of the bibliographic elements in ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2012''
 ** ''If reporting on use digital objects using NISO SUSHI, each object with a TEI header should be reported on''
 ** ...

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, 27 October 2014
Line 27:		Line 27:

	* Expansion of [[ODD#Future_plans:_.22Pure_ODD.22\|Pure ODD]] to enable us to define the content model of elements based on context; this would be convertible into models based on complexTypes in XSD, and into Schematron in RelaxNG. This would require that we drop support for DTDs (which most agree would be a good idea anyway).		* Expansion of [[ODD#Future_plans:_.22Pure_ODD.22\|Pure ODD]] to enable us to define the content model of elements based on context; this would be convertible into models based on complexTypes in XSD, and into Schematron in RelaxNG. This would require that we drop support for DTDs (which most agree would be a good idea anyway).
		+
		+	* Go through a list of recent standards and standards updates and recommend how to use TEI in combination with them. Sample recommendations might be (I'm not asserting the truth of any of these):
		+	** ''If encoders use NISO Z39.84-2005, the DOI may be expected to appear in the ''idno'' element.''
		+	** ''None of the bibliographic elements exactly match any of the bibliographic elements in ANSI/NISO Z39.96-2012''
		+	** ''If reporting on use digital objects using NISO SUSHI, each object with a TEI header should be reported on''
		+	...
		+


	[[Category:Suggestions]]		[[Category:Suggestions]]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 * A clear distinction between elements used when transcribing a source document (like bibl) and elements used in creating born-digital documents (like biblStruct and biblFull).  Need to figure out how msDesc fits into this.
-* Expansion of Pure ODD to enable us to define the content model of elements based on context; this would be convertible into models based on complexTypes in XSD, and into Schematron in RelaxNG. This would require that we drop support for DTDs (which most agree would be a good idea anyway).
+* Expansion of [[ODD#Future_plans:_.22Pure_ODD.22|Pure ODD]] to enable us to define the content model of elements based on context; this would be convertible into models based on complexTypes in XSD, and into Schematron in RelaxNG. This would require that we drop support for DTDs (which most agree would be a good idea anyway).
 [[Category:Suggestions]]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 * Consider placing a restriction on the simultaneous use of @url and @facs on <graphic> (see Council list discussion 2012-06-20).
 * Completely redo handling of lists by:
 ** dropping @type