Well, don't bother with that one. Here's another one. The current draft for purified datatype specification allows for three possibilities on <dataRef>: (a) you reference a W3C datatype using @name (b) you reference a TEI-defined datatype using @key (c) you reference some-other-guys-defined set of datatypes using @ref My question: can anyone come up with an example for case (c) ???? or shall we just leave that in as a concession to TEI-political-correctness, without bothering to try to implement it? On 19/06/15 17:16, James Cummings wrote:
Oh? You want us to *read* the message.
No, I never claimed I did that. :-)
-James
On 19/06/15 17:10, Lou Burnard wrote:
Good, well now we've got the meta-issues out of the way, does anyone have anything to say on the content of the message?
On 19/06/15 13:46, Martin Holmes wrote:
Good call, James. The Outlook server had flagged the message as junk. I've never had a Council message flagged as junk before.
Cheers, Martin
On 15-06-19 04:09 AM, James Cummings wrote:
For the record, I got the old message. (Martin: also check your junkmail, as post- or pre-dated email is sometimes a junkmail trigger.) It appears in my mail client (thunderbird) as if it was sent on 15th. It appeared on my phone as arriving on the 18th.
This is most likely just a queued email while Lou was off wifi.
-James
On 18/06/15 20:37, Martin Holmes wrote:
No, I definitely don't have it anywhere. I have four much shorter messages between Lou and Sebastian with the header:
oddbyexample gotcha
which don't contain the detail that was in the longer message you first sent to the list.
Cheers, Martin
On 15-06-18 11:43 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
Maybe try scrolling up in your inbox? If you have them sorted by date (but not "date received"), it would have been filed with the messages from 15 June.
On 6/18/15 1:36 PM, Martin Holmes wrote: > I didn't get it from the Council list, though; just from > Kevin. Perhaps > something is wrong. > > Cheers, > Martin