[tei-council] class struggle continues

[Lou Burnard]

James Cummings wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that
>> * persName ought to be a member of att.personal (definitely)
> agreed

Unfortunately, this causes everything to break, since persName 
explicitly defines its own @type


>> * @full and @sort ought to be separated from @type (maybe)
> Is there anything special about @type here compared to that provided by
> att.typed?  Or maybe I should be asking, what is the difference?
> 

Sometimes (about 40%) when an element has a @type, it has  inherited it 
from att.typed. Other times it defines it for itself. Usually this is 
because the locally-defined variant has a helpful valList associated 
with it. We looked at this problem, gingerly, at the class meeting in 
Oxford and then ran away from it.  att.typed also gives you @subtype 
which you may not want, but that seems to be less of an issue to me.


>> * att.naming is a silly name if all it does is give you @key, especially
>> as some of its members are not by any stretch of the imagination names
>> at all
> 
> If we rename it, is it really the right place for @nymKey?  I have no
> suggestions for better names, but agree that one isn't really right.
> 

I think it definitely is the right place for @nymKey. One gives you a 
pointer to the thing being named, the other gives you a pointer to the 
canonical name used for the naming.

>> * att.personal ought to be a member of att.naming (definitely)
> 
> agreed.
> 
but vide supra...