[tei-council] Further update on PH

[Lou Burnard]

Dear Conal

This is all very late, and not helped by the collapse of the Council 
list last week, so forgive me for just diving in without further ado, 
and also if I've missed some crucial detail.

As I understand them, your proposed changes to PH may be summarised as 
follows:

1. Disallow the simplified use cases in which co-ords dont figure (i.e. 
the cases of <facsimile> containing just <graphic>s, or <surface> 
containing alternate <graphic>s)

2. Remove xMax and yMax attributes from <surface> and define it
independently of any graphic

3. Allow any zone within a surface to specify an associated graphic. The 
graphic is understood to correspond with the space defined by the zone's 
@box attribute.

I feel quite strongly that (1) is a bad idea. The two simple use cases 
are real ones which we ought to support, independently of zoning 
regulations. And the proposed way of supporting them make sense, to me 
at least. Note also that the latter case implies that a <surface> is an 
abstraction, of which you may have alternative representations, and is 
*not* therefore a <surfaceImage> as I was arguing earlier.

I am less worried by (2) and (3), though it does seem a little perverse 
to define a surface which is smaller than one of the zones it 
"contains". I'll leave Sebastian to comment on the need for xMax and 
yMax, since I am not sure that I understand that. My guess is that you 
need them as soon as you want to map the abstract co-ords of a @box to 
the real pixels of a graphic

You also identified a number of real typos and inconsistencies, for 
which thanks. And I identified some more, e.g. a lack of co-ordination 
on how to spell "coordinate"  (with a hyphen or without? I am voting for 
"with")