[tei-council] we don't no need stinkin' classification

Lou's Laptop lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Tue Dec 11 08:10:10 EST 2007


Intriguingly, that reference to a non-existent element has been around 
for many years. I suspect there quite a few other bits of rubbish in 
those <remarks> elements

Clearly though <classDecl> is currently the only appropriate element to 
replace it by, if we want to retain the remark at all. We haven't 
thought through how @type or @subtype taxonomies get defined, I agree.


Syd Bauman wrote:
> >From [P5]/Source/Specs/att.typed.xml:
>
>    ... the <gi>classification</gi> element of the
>        <gi>encodingDesc</gi> within ...
>
> I don't have time to research this one right now, and thought someone
> else might want to take a crack at it before I get to it, which is
> likely to be tomorrow afternoon or Wed morning. (In case the problem
> isn't obvious: not only doesn't P5 have a <classification> element in
> the <encodingDesc>, it doesn't have one at all! And neither did P4.
> And the answer isn't just "oh, it's supposed to be <classDecl>", I
> don't think, as I'm not sure how one could formally define a typology
> for type= or subtype= using <taxonomy>, as <category> is supposed to
> be pointed at with a URI, and type= isn't a URI.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>   



More information about the tei-council mailing list