[tei-council] clarifications for WD chapter

[Syd Bauman]

[Note: this is a reply to stuff sent off-list, in order to keep
Council apprised.]

SB> * When you (CW & MB) wrote "&#x8AAC;" in the <egXML>, did you want
SB>   the output to show a CJK character or a numeric character
SB>   reference?

MB> I believe the CJK makes better sense here

CW> Yep, that was my intention, just wanted to make sure they don't
CW> get destroyed in email communication.

Check. Good thing, too, as Sebastian has noted, it's hard to show the
reference itself properly. 


SB> * The last new bit talks about the case where there are two variant
SB>   glyphs, neither of which is defined in Unicode. Should we mention
SB>   that the mechanism discussed is generalizable? I.e. if there are 3
SB>   or more variant glyphs, you do the same thing: define one as a
SB>   <char> and the others as <glyph> variants thereof.

MB> That might be useful.

CW> You could mention that, but I think it is quite obvious.

Check. I've left as is, but changed "two" to "multiple" and the rest
of the para accordingly.


[On the "u8aaa" example in revised 5.3]
MB> this is a really helpful example, but .. do we have something
MB> better than Unicode and Standard for the attValues? Users might be
MB> tempted to think that "standard" is not Unicode. How about
MB> "variant" and "standard" or something like "uniVariant" and
MB> "uniStandard"

CW> Then we call the first "Unicode" and the second "Orthographic",
CW> maybe. Since we have only a glyph here, <mapping type="Unicode">
CW> is necessary to tie this glyph to a Unicode character. The second
CW> line then points to the character considered to be "orthographic"
CW> in this case.

Changed to "Unicode" and "orthographic".