[tei-council] how about this one?

[Syd Bauman]

I'm not 100% sure I understand all the nuances (and I don't
understand what "prolixity" means in this context), but my instinct
is that Lou & Conal are right: so long as the area of coverage of a
<zone> is with respect to its closest ancestor <surface>, then
nesting a <zone> in a <zone> just causes confusion.

The question is whether it should be possible to define the area of
coverage of a <zone> with respect to its parent <zone> or <surface>
(as an alternative to its first ancestor <surface>). Personally, I
think that would add way too much complexity for too little gain, and
that <zone>s should be left as they are.


> I think I agree with Conal here. A zone defines some area within the 
> co-ordinate system defined by its parent surface. Nesting has no other 
> significance. If you allowed one zone to nest within another, the inner 
> zone would still have to define its area in terms of the co-ordinate 
> system defined by its grandparent surface. Therefore there is nothing to 
> be gained by nesting zones within each other. I considered other 
> possibilities for approx one nano second, before deciding that the 
> possible loss in prolixity was not worth the definite increase in 
> complexity.