[tei-council] facsKey agayne

Martin Holmes mholmes at uvic.ca
Tue Feb 9 11:36:46 EST 2010


Also, while we're looking at this issue, I'd like to include another 
thing that's been confusing me. Why do we have

@target = 1–∞ occurrences of data.pointer

and

@targets = 2–∞ occurrences of data.pointer

It seems to me that @target is all we need, since it can handle any 
number of pointers. Am I missing something?

I think any attribute that holds at least one data.pointer might as well 
hold 1–∞ of them.

Cheers,
Martin

Martin Holmes wrote:
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2010, at 15:40, James Cummings wrote:
>>> I think someone should post a summary of the issue to TEI-L for 
>>> wider discussion.
>> I was waiting for more thoughts; I dont want to look too stupid on TEI-L.
>> ("hi" to all those people reading this list via Google anyway….)
>>
>>> Would this also mean that other places we have say a @ref and a 
>>> @key that we might deprecate @key in favour of optionally using 
>>> @ref in this manner as well?  
>> ideally
> 
> I really like this idea in principle. IIRC, there isn't yet a formal 
> method of deprecating an element or attribute, though, is there?
> 
> We also need to think about @cRef here. I've used that on occasion, and 
> have been caught (by Syd, naturally) failing to supply "a canonical 
> reference from a scheme defined in a refsDecl element in the TEI 
> header", as I'm supposed to. If we're encouraging the use of custom 
> protocols in @facs and elsewhere, do we also want to encourage or 
> require some equivalent documentation of a method for discovering the 
> actual destination of the pointer?
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
(mholmes at halfbakedsoftware.com)
martin at mholmes.com


More information about the tei-council mailing list