Quick comments on the P5 page: 1. The link " installing the command-line version http://www.tei-c.org/Tools/index.xml#roma " for Roma goes (redundantly) here http://www.tei-c.org/Tools/index.xml#roma but should probably go to http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/Customization/odds.xml#romacommandline (you might want also to change from "installing" to "using") 2. Grammar police alert..... For a set of files are provided in the xml/tei/odd/ directory which are for use by" please substitute "The following files are provided in the directory xml/tei/odd for the use of " 3. I don't like the insistently ingratiating tone of the paragraph titled "Previous Releases of P5" ("for convenience...", "one of the benefits of this...", "organised nicely...") I would prefer something straightforwardly factual, as is the case for the rest of the page. And please be consistent about whether the reader is addressed as "you" or as "one". 4. "list the element or class name" -> "listing the element or class name" (I assume) 5. I wonder if it's time to retire or at least make less prominent the mention of the fact that P4 exists? The initial para saying "P5 is a major revision of the TEI Guidelines that offers many new and improved features. Although P5 is very different from P4, both in its technical details and in many of its encoding provisions, migration from P4 to P5 is largely automatable using readily available tools. The TEI provides information and advice on migration http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P4/migrate.html, and has also established a page on the TEI wiki http://www.tei-c.org/wiki/ where TEI users can contribute migration tools and stylesheets." could perhaps be moved to the end of the page or revised ? On 04/10/15 23:33, Martin Holmes wrote:
I've updated these two pages:
http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/ http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/get.xml
If anyone has five minutes to give them a read, let me know if you see anything that needs fixing.
Kevin, I hope I haven't trodden on your feet there; I figured that while I was doing other stuff involving SF to GitHub, I might as well do these. Both pages, but especially the second, have some very ancient and perhaps now obsolete sections that really need looking at, especially as we're making decisions about what to do with the deb packages.
Cheers, Martin