Martin Holmes wrote:
> P5 is now (as far as I
> understand it) closed to further proposals, so that would mean that
> nothing would be done in P5 at all.
your proposal is on the table now for P5. That doesn't
mean it cannot be refined without being chucked out.
there is a commitment to dealing with it one way
> have something for the purpose in P5. We will all be using P5 for years,
> and I think on balance it will be better for tool developers if we have
> something, rather than nothing.
It does not have to be part of the TEI schema, though.
The prose of the Guidelines could say "This sort of thing
is a good idea, we recommend you use this namespace
to extend element <XXX> in the header for the purpose
of your tool", and stop there. Would that just be annoying?
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service