[tei-council] handShift anomaly
lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Sun Oct 1 18:27:53 EDT 2006
David J Birnbaum wrote:
> 1) I don't see the point of allowing @old, which seems to add no
> information that cannot be encoded otherwise (as you note). More
> importantly, though, it creates the opportunity for:
> ...<handShift old="a" new="b"/>blah blah blah<handShift old="x"
> new="c"/>blah blah ...
> That is, being able to comment on the hand both before and after the
> shift creates the opportunity to do this incompatibly. Would it not be
> safer to allow only the description of the new hand?
Can anyone remember where the idea of permitting both @old and @new came
I can see an argument for saying you might want to specify EITHER @old
OR @new, but entirely agree with David's reservations about the wisdom
of permitting both.
> 2) I'm a bit uneasy about (although not entirely opposed to) allowing
> both embedded descriptions (<handShift><desc>blah
> blah</desc></handShift>) and remote ones (<handShift new="#blah"/>).
Apart from consistency, I think another advantage of the <desc>
suggestion might be that you could add or qualify locally information
implied by the link. So
<desc>Not quite the same green as elsewhere but probably from the same
More information about the tei-council