I thought the links were from the main element affected by the changes, and other elements didn't get <gi>. i [Elli Mylonas Senior Digital Humanities Librarian and Center for Digital Scholarship University Library Brown University library.brown.edu/cds] On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Hugh Cayless wrote:

I didn't link all of them, but tried to link each one at least once. If you're really uncomfortable, you could rewrite the sentence to point to att.global.source instead. I don't think I'm terribly bothered by it. I wasn't sure about pointing at the specific release, so I didn't. I worry slightly about people looking at the release notes and going from there to a frozen version of the GLs without realizing it. On the other hand, there is the chance the links will be invalidated at some point in the future. I dunno.

Sent from my phone.

...

On Dec 14, 2016, at 21:21, Syd Bauman wrote:

Someone clever added links from the readme-3.1.0.xml file to the Guidelines by surrounding various <gi>, <ident>, and an <att> with <ref>.

1) Should *all* <gi> and <ident> be made into links? (There are a half dozen or so that are not links. I haven't looked at 'em carefully, maybe they shouldn't be. Happy to look and fix, if that's the goal.)

2) I am slightly uncomfortable with the link from <att>source</att> to the Guidelines, as the link points to the tagdoc for a class. Since the tagdoc defines only 1 thing, the attribute @source, I'm not very uncomfortable. :-)

3) Most importantly, shouldn't the links be to the specific release we are talking about? E.g., http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/3.1.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ ref-actor.html -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

Morning, In answer to Syd's questions (which I'm just seeing now), 1) Not all, I think what Hugh did is fine. 2) I think you'll live with it but we could change the prose. 3) Naw, they are talking about elements in the abstract, across releases. (Ok, your next question then is how we would comment that we've removed a particular element... point to the previous release?) I'm going to now give the release notes a read through and see if there is anything else that needs adding. -James On 15/12/16 09:32, Lou Burnard wrote:

The only time that anyone is likely to read the release notes is shortly after the release, so having the links go to the current release seems plausible. It might possibly be confusing in the future, if someone wanted to see what had changed in what will then be a previous release. Such folks if they exist will no doubt be able to sort that confusion for themselves. Personally, I am surprised to see the links there at all: when Guidelines prose gets processed elsewhere the <gi>s are automagically converted to links anyway.

On 15/12/16 03:10, Mylonas, Elli wrote:

...

I thought the links were from the main element affected by the changes, and other elements didn't get <gi>. i

[Elli Mylonas Senior Digital Humanities Librarian and Center for Digital Scholarship University Library Brown University library.brown.edu/cds]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I didn't link all of them, but tried to link each one at least once. If you're really uncomfortable, you could rewrite the sentence to point to att.global.source instead. I don't think I'm terribly bothered by it. I wasn't sure about pointing at the specific release, so I didn't. I worry slightly about people looking at the release notes and going from there to a frozen version of the GLs without realizing it. On the other hand, there is the chance the links will be invalidated at some point in the future. I dunno.

Sent from my phone.

...

On Dec 14, 2016, at 21:21, Syd Bauman wrote:

Someone clever added links from the readme-3.1.0.xml file to the Guidelines by surrounding various <gi>, <ident>, and an <att> with <ref>.

1) Should *all* <gi> and <ident> be made into links? (There are a half dozen or so that are not links. I haven't looked at 'em carefully, maybe they shouldn't be. Happy to look and fix, if that's the goal.)

2) I am slightly uncomfortable with the link from <att>source</att> to the Guidelines, as the link points to the tagdoc for a class. Since the tagdoc defines only 1 thing, the attribute @source, I'm not very uncomfortable. :-)

3) Most importantly, shouldn't the links be to the specific release we are talking about? E.g., http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/3.1.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ ref-actor.html -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford