Sigfrid Lundberg wrote:
> 2. Versioning of parsed entities.
> The question I posed was towards the end of
> Quite a few useful answers were provided, eg
> and some remarks about ducks, XML and the risks of versioning
These are indeed interesting comments, but it's not clear what should be
done about them. I don't think <change> or other part of the
<revisionStmt> makes much sense anywhere except in the Header and would
not easily co-exist automatically with version control software, unless
we were willing to make its content model a *lot* more rigorous (not
necessarily a bad thing tho).
The two suggestions that seem least implausible to me are:
(a) the cunning hack: use something that looks like a PI to XML but like
a version control status line to the version control system
(b) the flat earth method: insert a <note type="change"
We used something like (a) during the production of P3, I now remember.
It was not very robust and I at least have since given up on the idea of
making all version control information explicit in the document (though
it is of course in the CMS we are using, and can be exported if need be).
Method (b) could be improved somewhat by special-casing this sort of
note as a new element eg
<changeNote resp="who" date="when">what</changeNote>
but the problem of automatically processing/generating it with the
version control system would still remain