[tei-council] comments on edw90

[James Cummings]

Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Is this something different from xml:lang?  If yes, why do we need it?
> Good question. I think the general feeling was that it would be helpful 
> to document the use of xml:lang by referring to this datatype, but that 
> may be a mistake.

Just to make sure I'm understanding this...would that datatype then be used for 
validation of @xml:lang's format?  It seems strange to me to be using a 
tei.datatype to validate and/or document use of a non-TEI element/attribute. 
Will we be doing the same for xml:id? (or html:object or something?)  I guess I 
want to know why xml:lang is in need of the documentation when it's format is an 
external standard?  I think that is at the root of my unease with this (but, as 
always, I'm willing to be convinced).

In addition, on reflection, I am not as bothered as I would have thought in 
regards to the removal of a tei.typed class.

-James
-- 
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk