[tei-council] datatype issues (part 1)

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Christian Wittern wrote:

>
>Also, I would rather have some layer of human-readability here,
>which could then under the hood be mapped to the relevant codes. mfxu
>is just so much more intuitive than 1209.  The same issue came also up
>with durations, P35Y vs. 35yrs.  At some point, we planned to have the
>tei.* stuff provide this layer -- is this what Syd is the underlying
>assumption that turned out to be not workable?  In that case, we have
>to rethink the whole strategy, I am afraid. 
>  
>
The thing that Syd wanted, which Lou and I claim is unworkable,
is to have separate enumerated lists for each element which
shares a global attribute. So no, this isn't it.

You phrase "under the hood be mapped to the relevant codes"
sounds nice, but there is no hood under which this can happen!
If you want your archival XML to have ISO values for sex, but your
editors seem "mfu", then you have to use an alternate authoring DTD,
and impose a transformation in your workflow.


-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk