create generic policy for the TEI on integration of external standards #507
Description
At the Oxford 2013 face-to-face meeting, it was agreed that KH, SB, and LB would articulate a generic policy for the TEI on the integration of external standards. (See note at https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/482/#28f3 .) KH SB and LB emailed them:
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:20:17 -0500
Subject: draft generic policy for TEI on the integration of external standardsGentlemen,
In Oxford we were charged with drafting a one-page statement of policy
regarding integration of external standards into the TEI (see discussion
of FR 482). We are supposed to have this done before the next
teleconference, which I believe will take place in January.I've tried not to reference how we've done things in the past (for
example, co-maintenance of feature structures) because it sounds like we
realize that we don't want to do things like this in the future. In
fact, Council may decide it wants to clean up past practice once we
decide what we're doing in the future. For now, though, a brief
statement of what we'd like to do in the future:http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw28.xml
Thoughts?
Kevin
I intentionally did not link it from http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/ since it hasn't been adopted by Council yet.
I'm creating this ticket so we don't forget about this.
It now occurs to me that tcw28 should also address whether to link to an RFC or a BCP if both exist for the same thing. I believe that if a document is revised, it gets a new RFC number, whereas the BCP number stays the same. So the BCP is good as a stable point of reference, but it could change without the TEI Council (or users) knowing about it, causing a discrepancy between what's in the BCP document and how users or the Guidelines examples use something.
Original comment by: @kshawkin