Hi Lou, I'm not sure Mr Driscoll would be horrified; we can only know by asking. As far as "I told you so" is concerned, of course you're at liberty to do that, but the question is: about what? About the move from @type to @unit? About the decision to deprecate this particular use of @type? About the decision not to add <biblScope> to att.typed as a backward-compatibility measure? About the decision to act on the deprecation we have advertised in red in the Guidelines for two years? Cheers, Martin On 14-12-21 06:25 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
On 20/12/14 23:17, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
One of the design goals for ENRICH was to be a subset of TEI, so I believe that in lieu of any other mandate we should continue making it so, if we want to continue with supporting it. The most honest thing to do might be to remove it from the Exemplars :-}
That would seem to imply abandoning that particular design goal ?
I vote for either dropping it, for keeping it in line with TEI. I do understand Lou’s worry that it will simply annoy people, but I think that updating it is the lesser of two evils.
There are quite a few Exemplars which I think are closer to being useless than this one, so I'd not vote for removing it. So I suppose the exemplar needs to be tweaked to be TEI-conformant. Looking into doing that now.
Legalistically speaking, the thing has 3 authors, of whom 2/3 vote to change it. But if you still feel strongly, Lou, how about you consult a known relevant party, viz M Driscoll, and see which way he’d vote?
He'd be horrified, but I don't see how that would help. Never mind, I've been outvoted before and doubtless will be again. Just allow me to say "told you so" when the time comes (cf. James on global @resp)