[tei-council] proposed re-org of div wrapping

[Lou Burnard]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> First, has anyone looked at or tested this limited phrase stuff yet? 

I'm still hoping for a report on what exactly you've done, but if you 
want it tested, the quickest method would be to hack together a quick 
test file in the tests directory, no?

> 
> Second, in order to fix the content of <div> and permit an element
> for postscripts (which I propose to call <ps>), I am planning to
> re-organize the div wrapper classes.

Eh? Hang on! where did this postscript element come from? is there a 
sffr or trac item about it? why do you think the content model of div is 
broken?



> 
> --------- current arrangement ---------
> 
> model.divWrapper = argument byline dateline docAuthor docDate
>                    epigraph head opener salute
> 
> model.divWrapper.bottom = closer signed trailer
> 
> 
> model.divWrapper is in the content model of lots of things, typically
> both at the top & bottom. 
> 
> model.divWrapper is in the content model of almost all the same
                  ^.bottom, I presume

> things (but not <divGen> nor <castList>), but only at the bottom.


> 
> 
> --------- proposed arrangement ---------
> 
> model.divTop = head opener salute epigraph
> model.divBottom = closed signed trailer ps
> model.divWrapper = argument byline dateline docAuthor docDate 
> 

this is not far from what we used to have, before (in Oxford) we decided 
to make divWrapper.bottom a subclass of divWrapper, and make divWrapper 
a combination of the old divTop and divBottom

Why are you revisiting this issue?

> In general, model.divWrapper & model.divTop will be used near the
> tops of things; and correspondingly, model.divWrapper and
> model.divBottom would be used near the bottom.
> 
> ---------
> 
> This becomes a bit of a problem for <divGen>, which I just realized
> is permitted to have content. (It is required to be empty in P3 & P4,
> and was in P5 until we changed how the <index> element worked in
> summer 2005. I'm at a bit of a loss at the moment -- can someone
> explain to me why we did this? Why would <divGen> need content?)
> 

divGen is supposed to behave just like a div, except that its content 
can be generated. If it's a div it has to be able to have divWrapper 
elements inside it. It's a convenience for the encoder if the divWrapper 
elements can be explicitly attached to the divGen rather than generated 
along with the content. I don't think it's anything to do with <index> 
particularly.



> 
> Please speak up if you have any thoughts about this.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>