Difference between revisions of "Council-ticketTriage"

From TEIWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Suggestions for new content models/elements/classes: corrected link for 3547289)
m (→‎Suggestions for new content models/elements/classes: wiki markup)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 136: Line 136:
  
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3561933 : Encoding of Standoff annotations      AMBER
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3561933 : Encoding of Standoff annotations      AMBER
−
* http://purl.org/TEI/BUGS/3532022 : <lg> should be allowed in <p> AMBER
+
* http://purl.org/TEI/BUGS/3532022 : <lg> should be allowed in &lt;p&gt; AMBER
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/BUGS/3519806 : <name> should be a member of att.datable  AMBER
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/BUGS/3519806 : <name> should be a member of att.datable  AMBER
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3523791 : an addition to <timeline> to record stretches of time AMBER
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3523791 : an addition to <timeline> to record stretches of time AMBER
−
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3518932 : Use @range instead of abusing @from on <span>   AMBER
+
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3518932 : Use @range instead of abusing @from on &lt;span&gt;   AMBER
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3523225 : New attribute @keepHyphen  AMBER
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3523225 : New attribute @keepHyphen  AMBER
−
* http://purl.org/TEI/BUG/3547289 : model.gramPart and <cit> AMBER
+
* http://purl.org/TEI/BUG/3547289 : model.gramPart and &lt;cit&gt; AMBER
  
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3547558 : *Spec elements could have <keywords> or use @ana  RED
 
* http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3547558 : *Spec elements could have <keywords> or use @ana  RED

Latest revision as of 18:10, 20 September 2012

These are tickets to be considered during the September 2012 Technical Council meeting in Oxford.

Green

There are only SIX GREEN tickets still open on 15 sep 12. I don't think any of them needs any particular discussion at the meeting, unless the assignee wants to decline the honour, or report progress. Here's the list, just for completeness.

related terminology) - assigned to louburnard. Some comments on ticket. Revised wording to be drafted for mtg

- assigned to jcummings

- assigned to martindholmes : requires action at next release to generate prefixed identifiers throughout text of GL

- assigned to mholmes

Amber

There are only 19 AMBER tickets as of 15/09.

Of these, I think three are actually fairly clear and just need action: with a bit of tidying they could be green:

Three further tickets indicate clearly enough for drafting purposes some places where clarifications and revisions to text of Glines are needed:

And two more are concerned with some tweaking of current attribute classes -- they just need some careful fiddling about, but nothing controversial.

Council probably needs to allocate time to discuss the following EIGHT tickets, where the action proposed is controversial or may be unnecessary. I've put them in (my perceived) descending order of priority.

Which leaves just one ticket that seems to be concerned only with meta-issues (how to indicate deprecation, if we wish to discuss that)

and two which are stuck, pending action elsewhere

Red

And finally, there are 8 RED tickets as of 15/09

Two of these have had extensive discussion and clarification and I think should be recategorised as Amber. A both more discussion at the ftf, and I think these could both be resolved:

Hopefully the ISO meeting on 22 Oct will give some ideas for progressing the following two:

Unless anyone objects, I think this one can be closed

If there's anything further to be done here, it should be discussed when we review MH's update to TCW20 about schematron

Which leaves the following three definitely red, all of which are still in need of considerable amounts of work/discussion...

Previously Ungrouped

I've now reviewed all the previously ungrouped tickets (apologies again for the delay) and made some tentative groupings of them, as indicated below.

Where I've marked something GREEN it's because I think I know what should be done, and it's clear, and the owner of the ticket should just go ahead and do it unless anyone on council calls foul. I've tried to add a comment clarifying what's to be done if it's not clear.

Where I've marked a ticket AMBER, I usually also have a clear idea of what should be done, but am (un)comfortably aware that other views exist. So Council needs to state firmly that it agrees with me (or of course, conceivably, the other guy) before this ticket can move to GREEN or (in most cases) be implemented. And of course there are some cases where I actually have no view at all, and it's still not clear what to do.

There are also a few RED tickets, where the issue lacks clarity, or requires lots of work before it is clear what actions are needed.

I've tried to group tickets by topic, on the assumption that we may want to tackle some of them in breakout groups.

Various bibliographic matters, proposals for change

Ongoing activities for review

Suggestions for new content models/elements/classes

Revisions of the Guidelines documentation

Retrieved from "https://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php?title=Council-ticketTriage&oldid=11286"