Dear all,

Response to my last email on this subject having been deafening in its 
silence, we didn't get much further in discussion of Hugh's XPointer 
proposal 
<http://docs.google.com/document/d/1JsMA-gOGrevyY-crzHGiC7eZ8XdV5H_wFTlUGzrf20w/edit> 
at the TEI Council meeting last week. There is an action on me in the 
minutes of that meeting to push this list to discuss the proposal further.

I understand that both Martin and Piotr had spotted some factual 
inconsistencies in the proposal, and/or had concrete suggestions for 
ways that a simpler (or existing) scheme could address the use-cases 
suggested (especially is xpath2() is available. As a matter of priority 
we need specific feedback from both of them on which cases they're 
talking about, highlight issues and suggestions for 
improvement/rationalization, so Hugh and others have something to 
respond to.

If it turns out that everything we can imagine wanting to do--including 
Stuart's use-cases, Hugh's Papyri examples, and Laurent's projects--is 
logically addressable using existing XPointer schemes, well that would 
be great! But we still need to write an actionable spec of those schemes 
so that they can be properly implemented, right? So this discussion is 
still necessary.

Thanks,

Gabby

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/