[tei-council] classy part

[Lou Burnard]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> The part= attribute is defined almost identically in four places:
> * <ab>
> * <l>
> * att.divLike (<div>, <divN>, <lg>)
> * att.segLike (<c>, <cl>, <m>, <phr>, <s>, <seg>, <w>)
>
> The only differences are in the wording of the definition. E.g., says
> "... how the [ block | line | division | segment ] is to be ...".
>
> I propose 
> * create new class, att.partial, which declares part=
> * add all four above to new att.partial
> * drop part= from all four, as they now have it via inheritance 
>   

This all sounds very reasonable to me.


> and also
> * make att.seLike a member of att.typed [1]
> * drop type= from att.segLike, as it now has it via inheritance
> * make <div> a member of att.typed
> * drop type= from <div>, as it now has it via inheritance
>
>   
This sound plausible, but I'm a bit worried about the number of @type 
attributes which remain not inherited -- quite a lot last time I looked. 
We need to work out a rationale for deciding when this is right and when 
it isn't rather than make piecemeal changes, I suggest. And your 
footnote gives one reason why this particular piece maybe shouldn't be 
changed.

> Someone would need to come up with good generic or exhaustive wording
> for the <desc> of part= and its values.
>
>   

For "[ block | line | division | segment ] " read "element carrying this attribute" ?




> Thoughts? 
>
> Notes
> -----
> [1] This adds subtype= to <c>, <cl>, <m>, <phr>, <s>, and <w>. If I
>     understand correctly in P4 these elements did not have subtype=
>     because they were considered analogous to <seg type="phr">, e.g.
>     So <seg> had the subtype=, but not the others.
>   

Yes. So on what grounds are you now proposing to revise this principle? 
I'm happy to revise it, but I'd like to know what the rationale is!