[tei-council] NH revised

[Christian Wittern]

Thank you Dan, good work delivered timely.  Up front, I have to say that 
I am much more happy with this then with the previous version.


Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> 1) I added a discussion of using milestones like lb to delimit
> non-nesting text. This is in addition to other discussions in the
> Guidelines
>   
This is fine, but it needs to be better integrated with those other 
parts (eg. pointing there). 
> 2) I changed the generic section delimiter from non-tei boundary to
> tei:anchor; @type is used to indicate that the use is a delimiter;
> @subtype used to indicate the element/feature being delimited; and @n to
> indicate the ordinal begin/end
>   
This smells indeed like tag abuse.  <app> has @from and @to, which is 
what you want here.  Unfortunately, they are not in a class -- why are 
they not in att.global.linking or something similar?  If we could, I 
think this is a change I would like to see.  (dare I say, there must be 
a backdoor around those shutters...)

> 3) I dropped a section on remodelling the document class
> 4) I collapsed the various types of segment delimitation into a single
> section
> 5) I added what seemed to be a missing section on join. This is in
> addition to the discussion elsewhere in the guidelines
>   
that fits in pretty well.

> 6) I replaced the three examples (German, Italian, and Tom Leyer) with
> two more-or-less equivalent English ones (Wordsworth and Pinsky). I
> wonder if the Pinsky is really better than the Leyer, however: it is
> missing a feature the Leyer one had and replacing Pinsky with Leyer is
> not difficult. I don't think we should have more than two main sample
> texts.
>   
Right.  The examples have about the right length, whatever else you want 
to say about them.

> The use of anchor instead of a non-tei boundary element is the most
> controversial bit, I think. I'm concerned myself that the use of @n for
> first and last may be attribute abuse, and Syd I know is concerned that
> this might be abusing anchor (actually, he's sure it is; the point is up
> for debate ;). I think I am also underselling HORSE in the current
> version.
>   
We did debate the presence of HORSE here.  I am all in favor of removing 
it for now and considering it for inclusion at a later point.

All the best,

Christian

-- 

 Christian Wittern 
 Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
 47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN