[tei-council] FAND faces setback

[James Cummings]

> David J Birnbaum wrote:
> The preceding paragraph makes sense only if Council very strongly believes
> that numbered divs are a Bad Idea. Should we discover, instead, that there
> is significant support for numbered divs within Council, #1 would be be
> inappropriate. Since we have a conference call coming up very shortly,
> would that be a good time to take a quick straw vote?

I'm happy to lose numbered divs.

> From my experience, the only rationale I've heard for numbered divs is that
> they make it convenient to go from the start of a div2 (for instance) to
> the end of that corresponding div2, by searching for the </div2>, where the
> use of un-numbered divs would make that impossible. Are there other
> justifications? Would it help to look at what the benefits of numbered divs
> are perceived to be?

I think the perceived benefit is that someone might want an easy way to
constrain say sections to only appear within chapters etc.  With the built in
restriction that div2 can only appear inside div1 they get this with no extra
work.  This is why I like the empty-class suggestion (if an easy solution to the
technical problems can be found).  As those who really want to use them can add
them back in, and name them.  (In my mind, _if_ you are going to have them then
renaming them sensible things for your project is better than leaving them
div1/div2.)

An anonymous communication from a FAND supporter suggests that at very least we
could consider sorting out the div0 versus div1 problem.  If numbered divs stay,
then being draconian and saying they all start at div1 doesn't seem too bad to me.

-James