Syd, you seem to be replying to/quoting from someone whose full remarks have not yet made it to the list, but in any case both of you seem to be confusing two things. 1) defining "pure ODD" and implementing processors for it 2) converting the Guidelines to use it For all sorts of reasons, it is is desirable (and relatively easy) to press ahead with (1). Council then needs to decide when and how to proceed to (2) On 09/06/15 18:33, Syd Bauman wrote:

I understand completely that conversion to Pure ODD is a big deal, but is converting <datatype> to <dataSpec> going to have a much larger impact than using <elementRef> instead of rng:ref, etc.?

My point is that conversion to Pure ODD is a big deal either way, no? I think you're right, project management, and maybe even some money, is in our future. (And I can already hear Hugh muttering "git-fork" under his breath. :-)

...

my heart slightly fails me when I start thinking about the side effects of dropping <datatype> and converting all the Guidelines to <dataSpec>. The existing .odd files out there stop working (potentially), Roma stops working, as does its little cousin Byzantium, the documentation of the Guidelines probably gets hosed, a small myriad of utilities fall over.

I hate to say it, but changes of this scale need a bit of project management.

else you need a team of dedicated people fixing things on the fly.