[tei-council] Another question....

[Laurent Romary]

I would definitely avoid breaking this and not impose too many  
constraints at the level of the guidelines. The flexibility we have at  
present should be counterbalanced by annotation projects defining  
precise encoding manuals, depending on the kind of precision and depth  
they want to acheive. We had a long discussion on what <pc> should be  
equivalent to, namely <w> or <c> and I am still not sure that we  
should restrain to <w>.

Le 9 juin 09 à 13:36, Lou Burnard a écrit :

> At present, segments smaller than <w> (e.g. <c>, <m>) and those  
> larger (eg <phr>)
> are all members of model.segLike. This means that (inter alia) the  
> following are
> all valid
> (i) <phr> <c/> </phr>
> (ii) <phr> <w> <c/> </w> <c/> </phr>
> (iii) <c> <w> <phr/></w></c>
> While we can all agree that (iii) is barking mad and should be  
> stopped,
> it's less clear what to do about (ii). On the one hand, we do now have
> a nice new <pc> element for punctuation, which could be defined as a
> sibling for <w>, so that (ii) could be replaced by
> (ii*) <phr> <w> <c/> </w> <pc/> </phr>
> On the other hand, in the absence till now of <pc>, there are
> literally millions of words of corpus out there which follow the
> pattern of (ii). Do we really want them all to become broken?
> I think not, but maybe (as one of the perpetrators) I'm biassed.
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council