[tei-council] rendition in ODD

[Lou Burnard]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Lou Burnard wrote:
>> but rendition, even default rendition, is not a property of the 
>> element itself, but of the document in which it appears. so it should 
>> not be polluting the  *spec, but tidily wrapped up in the header for 
>> the document in question, where it belongs,
> so 50,000 documents each of which say that <term> should be in italic 
> have to have 50,000 <rendition> elements?
> gimme break.

I don't think this is relevant. It would be equally annoying to have the 
50,000 ways I might choose to process a <term> cluttering up a single 
elementSpec wouldn't it?  In any real case where you had 50,000 
documents to process uniformly, you'd do it by using a single stylesheet 
anyway: and didn't we just agree that what stylesheet you can use is 
nothing to do with a  schema specification?

I thought the specific use case under consideration was how to format 
the TEI Guidelines, which is a single document. It makes sense to me to 
document the intended rendition for that in its header. Adding proposed 
renditional hints for all the element specs which happen to be used in 
the schema for that document makes less sense and, in my view, is 
un-necessary for the use case in hand.
>
> when I make an ODD, I say that _in this project_ @rend on <hi> will 
> have values
> "bold", "underline" and "subscript", because I have observed this in 
> my documents.
> I also want to record how to render those in CSS using font-style or 
> whatever.
> what is more natural, and One Document Does it all-like, to store 
> these font-style
> things with the relevant <valItem>?
Your argument would make more sense if we wanted to use the ODD to 
document a stylesheet, but that hasn't been proposed sfaics. Or is this 
argument really about the respective roles of the header and the ODD?

>
>