[tei-council] Supplying default namespace with TEI Tite

[Lou Burnard]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>
>> Maintainingf a "Tite Lite" in tandem with "Tite" does not appear on 
>> the above list, which is why I don't think it is meant to be taken as 
>> a serious suggestion.
> I was thinking that the one ODD could define both schemas, with some 
> jiggery pokery.
>>
>> I agree with the formulation of the choices tho. I don't like the 
>> third one at all. The second one seems perfectly OK. The first one 
>> might also be OK, but the case has not been made.
>>
> the second is where we are now. I agree, the first is the easiest and 
> most sustainable.
>
> for the record, we are talking about <b>, <i>, <ul>, <sub>, <sup>, 
> <smcap>, <cols>
> and <ornament>, where the first six are shortcuts for <hi>.
>
> its all predicated on a model of capture companies recording data as 
> <sup>
> and then being unable to transform it to <hi rend="sup"> before they
> finally hand it back to the person who paid for it :-}
>
>
> me, I've never bought into the idea!
>
Of course if we had an active SIG (or something) saying "we really need 
specialised forms of <hi> (etc) by analogy with the specialised forms of 
<seg>" possibly in their own separate module, that would be different!

I *really* don't understand  the need for <ornament> as distinct from 
<graphic>
though. Has anyone ever explained that?