rend= not global? (was "Re: Fwd: [tei-council] DRAFT Agenda for ...")

[James Cummings]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Syd Bauman wrote:
>>> Given that 95% of the elements *can* occur in the text, it would be
>>> a pain to add all of them to a "att.renderable" class, leaving 5%
>>> *not* members of that class. Isn't it easier to let sleeping dogs
>>> lie, and accept that its a bit weird?
>>>     
>>
>> Yes, it is easier. That doesn't mean it's better or the right thing
>> to do
>>   
> if we are going to add more or less all elements to an explicit
> class, might as well scrap implict membership of
> att.global entirely and do @xml:id and @n (etc)
> in the normal way?
> 
> i'm easy. just seems like a distraction to me.

I do actually agree with Sebastian and Laurent, that we probably shouldn't
worry too much about it now.  If there was a good way to have an
att.global-for-everything-under-text which elements only got when they were
used as a descendant of <text>, then that would be fine.  (i.e. <p> in the
header didn't have @rend but <p> inside a <div> inside <text> did.)  But
since I don't think we are able to accomplish that -- in a straightforward
and reasonable way -- then we should probably just shrug our shoulders,
maybe note something about the compromise in the Guidelines, and move on.
As long as we agree that @rend says nothing about output and only source,
then I'm happy.

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk