I'd say that /TEI/@status is far too blunt. It says 'this particular file is of status x'. What we are talking about here is a way of describing the status of the content (and markup) of the file. We already have two places for doing that: change and edition.

@status on change is interesting perhaps from a historical perspective. In practice the rule tends to be 'the latest date change=current revision. But the real place for @status IMO is on edition. As I said in my last email, putting it there allows you exactly the precision you want.

Daniel O'Donnell
University of Lethbridge
(From my mobile telephone)

--- original message ---
From: "Martin Holmes" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "status" of a (web) TEI document
Date: June 25, 2009
Time: 12:22:17 

James Cummings wrote:
> 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.

TEI/@docStatus, then? Anyone see any objections?


Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
([log in to unmask])
[log in to unmask]