[tei-council] <specGrp> and <specGrpRef> formatting

[James Cummings]

Dear All,

One of my actions was today sometime to post an explanation of the background of 
the brief discussion we were having concerning the formatting of specGrpRef and 
specGrp elements in the Guidelines.  I've been thinking about it because of some 
ongoing work on the formatting, but I think the inclusion or non-inclusion of 
the material is more than just a mere formatting decision.  My main complaint is 
not the inclusion of Relax NG fragments.  I think these are useful.  (Though, I 
think it might be more readable if in converting the XML to HTML they were 
gathered together at the end of any chapter which defines a module.)  What irks 
me in reading the prose of the guidelines is the (mostly automatically 
generated) references to the specGrp's and their numbering.  Can anyone (without 
looking it up) tell me what Specification Group 42 consists of? No? Well, if we 
don't know, then why are we introducing this numbering scheme to our readers?[1]

For example, looking at a random chapter, see Chapter 6 (DR: Performance
Texts).


At some point it says:

======
This module is organized as follows:
« include 70: Specialized front and back matter for performance texts »
« include 75: Stage directions »
« include 76: Screenplays and other technical matters »
======

While that is partly useful because it explains how the module is organized -- 
though do our readers really care what order elements are added to a module? -- 
what bothers me is the "include 75:" bits of it.  How does this really help me 
understand the TEI?  Never mind encoding Performance Texts?  Later inside 
'include 70' it says:

======
Specification group 70: Specialized front and back matter for performance texts

     « include 71: The set element »
     « include 72: The prologue and epilogue elements »
     « include 73: The performance element »
     « include 74: The castList element »
======

And whenever one of these are actually included it says something like:

======
The <set> element is formally defined as follows:
Specification group 71: The set element

Element set  [then some relax ng]
======

What I'd say is that (in most cases) the « include 71: The set element »
links aren't very useful.  People are reading the chapters as a set of
sections and subsections, I feel the list of inclusions is ugly and
unhelpful.  In addition when something is included I don't really think we
need 'Specification group 71: The set element'.  At very least we should
get rid of the number.  This is just a generated number, and has no real
meaning to the reader.  Another option is to, in presentation form on, as a 
final division to each chapter have a section where all of these are dealt with 
at once, once per module/chapter, rather than having them spread throughout the 
chapter.

As there is often prose which introduces the specGrpRefs and specGrps, there 
would need to be editorial changes to this, and the editors have been tasked 
with removing this regardless. (We should be able to automate the addition of 
leading prose if we do decide to retain these.)

As you've all doubtless read in the minutes, you are all tasked with discussing 
this and coming to some decision by 2007-09-07.

-James

[1] I chose Specification Group 42 at (near)random and really have no interest 
in that one in particular, I've not bothered to look it up.

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