[tei-council] on gi (was "Glosses, glosses, everywhere, and what do you all think?")

[Syd Bauman]

> > Should "gi" (as in <gi>, gi= of <tagUsage>, locus="gi" of <certainty>
> > or <respons>) be glossed as "generic identifier" or as "element
> > name"?

JC> Generic identifier.

LB> ... the gloss should actually say "XML element name", but that
LB> there should be a sentence in the <remarks> explaining why it's >
LB> called "gi".

I like Lou's idea here, a lot.


LB> [merge <gi> and <tag>]
SR, JC, LB> [discussion of idea]

I emphatically think of these two as separate things, think the
distinction is important, and worth keeping. I would not mind
dropping <tag> in favor of <code lang="XML"> at all, but the need for
<gi> for discussing elements qua elements is extremely important.
(Some would argue <gi> renamed to <element>, but I like the legacy
name, myself.)

In the words of that famous first communication between Charles
Goldfarb and Uri Rubinsky, "tag &ne; element!".


I am planning to implement Lou's gloss and remarks soon, but will
hold off on dropping <tag> until there is some kind of consensus or
vote.