[tei-council] classy part

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> Right, "att.partial" isn't quite right. "att.parted" is worse, I
> think. I think "att.can-be-fragmented-into-multiple-partial-elements"
> is too long. How about "att.partable"? 
>   
that would be fine if we had used "att.typable". its a pity
to vary tenses (or whatever it is)

> I thought you were in the "all things that can be categorized can be
> sub-categorized" camp. 
the advantage of being senile is that I have no
idea which camp I am in :-}
> If you like this idea, that makes 2 of us. The
> advantage I like, of course, is that not all existing members of
> att.typed need become members of att.subtyped.
indeed. it gives some extra power.
>  Any other takers for
> separating subtype= from type=? (BTW, shouldn't it be "subType="?)
>   
true

-- 
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