Syd Bauman writes:
> Although it is true that existing documents that are valid against
> "-//TEI P3//DTD Main DTD Driver File 1994-05//EN" may not be valid
> against "-//TEI P3//DTD Main DTD Driver File 2001-10//EN" (or what-
dont forget the XMLers, who are probably not using FPIs :-}
> ever), I'm not sure that this should stop us from making improvements
> to the TEI.
Improvements to the TEI is not an aim of P4, however.
> SR> The philosophy of the P4 TEI is to keep old documents working,
> SR> even if some constraints are loosened.
> This is a philosophy I was not aware of; nor do I think I approve
> of it, although I haven't put much thought into it yet. Is it
> promulgated anywhere?
Interesting question, I am not sure I can point you at chapter and
verse. I do remember it being discussed at the TEI directors meeting
in May, and this being very clearly recognised as the aim of the
current P4 work program, viz fixing known errors in P3 and making
whatever changes were need to use the DTDs in XML.
> The TEI is, at least in part, a research
> project (remember, the "P" stands for "proposal"), not a commercial
> product. If making it better includes making it more restrictive,
> then so be it, IMHO.
absolutely. that work on making the TEI better can start after P4 is
finished in November. which is not long away, after all!
> Yes, and thinking about those requests and acting on a good number of
> them would be an excellent thing for the TEI to do.
but not at the whim of the editors this week. its a job that should be
done by a working group commissioned by the technical council.
I stress that I am not at all, in general, against making a change
like "all resp to IDREF"!