[tei-council] EDW90 proposals (1 of several)
James.Cummings at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Sun Jul 31 11:02:26 EDT 2005
Lou Burnard wrote:
> I'm rather slowly working my way through the proposals in Syd's table of
> attributes in a more or less random order, picking off the simple cases
> first. I am simply applying the changes proposed where they seem
> non-controversial and/or already agreed to, but this is not always the
> As the whole document is a bit long to digest, I am going to post a few
> specific queries as they come up, to sound out Council's views:
> 1. Drop the following attributes on teiHeader:
> creator (Syd proposes using resp instead)
> status (this can take values "new" and "updated")
> It seems useful to me to distinguish the agency responsible for creation
> of a header from the person who last changed it (which is identifiable
> from the <revisionDesc>) but maybe not? I'm less sure about the
> usefulness of STATUS. Anyone use these attributes?
For the record, the OTA uses @type and @date.created but none of the
others. I've never noticed anyone using them in other files I've
> 3. Drop <xxxSpan> elements in favour of HORSE-style attributes (i.e.
> something like the spanTo attribute added to <index>)
> I am basically in favour of this proposal, but it needs more careful and
> detailed articulation
I'd agree with this (with a more detailed proposal).
> 4. drop SIGIL on <witness> in favour of xml:id
> This would be consistent with what we have already done for <hand> and
> <handShift>. But will the users of <witness> be happy having to say
> <witness xml:id="foo"> instead of <witness sigil="foo">?
My instant reaction to this was that I disagreed. However, I'm
willing to be convinced.
My reason for that was I have a vague memory of using
<witness id="OneThing" sigil="AnotherThing"> previously.
My understanding was that the sigil was a nice ID which then I'd
use in my <rdg>'s etc. elsewhere. So the <rdg> refers
back to the content of the <witness> in a semantic way as expressed by
the guidelines, but that an id or now xml:id simply locates the
element. So a sigil is an xml:id with meaning. I realise that is
I think I had previously mis-used them where an id was used for a
long-form of a sigil and sigil was used for the publicly-viewable
If we follow this further, does that mean <rdg> becomes
<rdg wit="#MsA #MsB #MsC"> instead of
<rdg wit="MsA MsB MsC"> ?
If that is happening across the board with other attributes which
function as an ID then I guess it is a good thing. But I thought I
should attempt to express my instant (and irrational) first impression.
More information about the tei-council