Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

>> Alternatively, you could use secret codes for your @n values on 
>> edition I suppose (if the @n value starts with X it's an expired 
>> edition... OK, no that is disgusting and I apologise for even 
>> mentioning it)
> well, that was my[1] plan, actually! you guessed right first time.
> 
> [1] ok, James Cummings' plan .....

I seem to recall that I winced when you mentioned it, and said something 
about "well that is the kind of abuse people make of @n".  Strange how 
we seem to have different recollections of this. :-)

As TEI documents are using increasingly for web publication, it seems 
reasonable that there should be a clear consensus on where and how to 
record both version and status information of the document as it passes 
through an internal workflow. I'm not making an argument for any of the 
proposed solutions, but suggesting that we should decide what *is* the 
right way to do it, and if we need new elements/attributes then add 
them.  I see the current 'status' of a document as metadata about its 
place in a revision process.  But a @status attribute on <revisionDesc> 
would imply the status of that <revisionDesc>, would it not? There used 
to be a @status on <teiHeader> (if memory serves) but that was again the 
'status' of the header itself, not the document as a whole.

Just my two pence,

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk