[tei-council] TEI Numbered Divs Survey: The Results.
lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Sat Feb 10 12:27:41 EST 2007
I think James has done a great job here. I assume he'll be posting this
summary along with the decisions arising from it to TEI-L in due course.
For the record, I also agree with his conclusions as follows:
1. we should abolish div0
2. we should retain a choice between div and div1 as the next hierarchic
level within front, body, back
3. this kind of user-consultation can be very effective
However, I feel the need for some reassurance about the way it's
proposed to make all these additional model classes. Two reasons have
a. without them, it is hard or impossible to define a robust content
model for body etc.
b. with them, users can use more "natural" like element names ("chapter"
Reason (a) looks plausible -- "robust" here means that you can delete
things from a schema without generating ambiguity, and this will at a
stroke reduce the number of white hairs generated when trying to make
sense of the existing content models
Reason (b) I like less. Why do we have <div>s at all if we are going to
do this? It is contrary to the original design decision, which was to
apply Occam's razor to this problem (you say "section" and I say "part"
-- let's call the whole thing "div"). Maybe I'm just worried about all
the rewriting that will have to be done if we take this proposal seriously.
James Cummings wrote:
> Dear Council,
> I have closed the TEI Numbered Divs survey and would like to report on
> the results. I have made a PDF of the summary report that Survey
> Monkey provides. It is available for download at:
More information about the tei-council