[tei-council] let's sort out the <w> problem first...

[Lou Burnard]

James Cummings wrote:
> Lou's Laptop wrote:
>> a. change <w> and <m> to have macro.paraContent, like all the other
>> model.segLike elements
>> b. permit these two to contain an appropriate subset of  "sublexical"
>> elements rather than model.segLike
>>
>> My preference would be for the latter. I suggest that the appropriate
>> subset would consist of
>> - current members of model.pPart.edit
>> - current members of model.hiLike
>> Whether this should consitute a new "sublexical" class is probably
>> best left to the next revision of the class system, however.
>
> I agree that this is a long-standing problem that certainly should be 
> fixed.  Of the two suggestions I certainly prefer b. because it really 
> should only be such things as pPart.edit or hiLike that you should 
> need at a lexical level inside a word.  However, I think there is 
> going to be a lot of resistance against removing all members of 
> model.segLike from the content mode of 'w' since it is exactly c cl m 
> seg and similar that people are going to want to have inside a lexical 
> word.  Or am I misunderstanding your suggestion?
>
> This would stop me using <seg type="word"> when I really just want to 
> use <w>... so I'm generally in favour as long as people can still use 
> c/cl/m/seg/g inside it as well.
>
> -James
>
I think it might be better to partition model.segLike into those which 
can reasonably be expected within a word (<m> and (possibly) <c>) and 
those which cannot (<cl>, <phr>), I'm unsure about <seg>.