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

[Lou Burnard]

I have already expressed my view on this, but let me reiterate  two 
things here:

a. allowing divGen to contain (optionally) model.divWrapper content is a 
simple, useful, and in my view therefore should not change;

b. expanding the semantic of divGen to mean "some other kind of virtual 
or generated element" is in my view neither simple nor necessary, and 
would be an undesirable change.

We should resist the temptation to introduce change just because it 
looks like it might be fun.






Arianna Ciula wrote:
> 
> 
> Syd Bauman wrote:
> omeone chimes in) and says it
>> might be a good idea to either:
>> * revert <divGen> to being an empty element, or
>> * get rid of <divGen>
> 
> In general, I am in favour to keep it as an empty element. Indeed, if 
> it's purpose is to be used to mark some automatically generated text 
> division (and this is the way we use it here), I don't see why it should 
> contain anything else (besides  model.divWrapper) that could go within 
> more appropriate elements.
> 
> However, I can see your point for having something automatically 
> generated at a level that is different than the divisional one.
> 
> Arianna
> 
>>
>>
>>> Why not? You will only have to properly wrap the part after
>>> <divGen>:
>>
>> True. But if the thing-to-be-generated is only a <table> ...
>>
>>
>>> But I do not really see how this relates to your argument about
>>> abolishing divGen, since this seems to be exactly the semantics as
>>> we have it now?
>>
>> It wasn't part of the argument for abolishing <divGen>, it was just
>> part of the train of thought that got me there. It was part of my
>> asking myself the question "is it helpful to permit content in
>> <divGen>".
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>