[tei-council] handShift anomaly

[Lou's Laptop]

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 
from?

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
<handShift new="#greenink">
<desc>Not quite the same green as elsewhere but probably from the same 
pot</desc>
</handShift>



L