[tei-council] time is running out ... <measure> and <ps>

[James Cummings]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> On <ps>
> -- ----
> As per council's request in Berlin, rather than checking <ps> into
> P5, I ripped it out and made a stand-alone ODD of it
> (http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/ps/). The ostensible point of this
> exercise was that having an element to encode postscripts is
> controversial enough that it was too scary for me to check it
> directly into P5. This means, IMHO, that we need an explicit vote to
> include this element in P5 or not. I think we need to make this
> decision ASAP.

For the record, the ps draft looks fine to me.

> * The <measure> element should have a quantity= attribute, not
>   extent= (and preferably not count=, although that's a lot better
>   than extent=).

@quantity is certainly better than @extent (@extent just makes me think of
@scope below).

> * <measure> should not have a scope= attribute (unless someone wants
>   to put in some work figuring out what a scope= might usefully mean
>   for a generic <measure>).

I'm not sure I know anyone who would really want to use the @scope attribute.

> * The "suggested values include" list for unit= of <measure> should
>   be pretty much as all-encompassing as we can get it.

Provide a list that includes examples from all major divisions of units,
you know one that refers to distance, area, volume, weight, resistance,
etc.  But I'd say no more than 10 total but with prose recommending how to
indicate things like converted units, precision, etc.

> * The <height>, <width>, and <depth> elements should not have a
>   commodity= attribute.

agreed,

> * The <height>, <width>, and <depth> elements should have a scope=
>   attribute (they currently do; the point of my saying this is to
>   contrast it with <measure>).

How used?

> * The "suggested values include" list for unit= of <height>, <width>,
>   and <depth> should be very limited (the list that is currently

sure,

> * The amount attribute on <height>, <width>, and <depth> could be
>   named quantity= or extent=, or for that matter, value=.

I'd go for quantity for consistency.

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