Difference between revisions of "P6-dev"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(added Category:Suggestions) |
|||
| 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Consider placing a restriction on the simultaneous use of @url and @facs on <graphic> (see Council list discussion 2012-06-20). | ||
[[Category:Suggestions]] | [[Category:Suggestions]] | ||
Revision as of 00:01, 21 June 2012
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
- 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.
- Consider placing a restriction on the simultaneous use of @url and @facs on <graphic> (see Council list discussion 2012-06-20).
