[tei-council] wait there's (a few) more
James Cummings
James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Tue Sep 14 10:02:08 EDT 2010
>> 3058674 Add model.graphicLike to content of glyph ...
> Can you update the ticket so that I understand the discussion between
> you and James?
I think the original request is complete clear (but maybe I'm
biased!)... it says:
===
We replaced model.graphicLike in char and glyph with figure, and
then I later made a good argument on another ticket for adding it
back to char, which was accepted and duly done. However, char and
glyph work in very similar ways and if it is justifiable for char
to have model.graphicLike then glyph should have it as well.
Recommendation: restore model.graphicLike to glyph, keeping
figure as well, as is the case in char.
===
To be extra clear: Once upon a time <char> and <glyph> both
allowed <graphic> as a child. Council decided that it should
also have <figure>, in implementing this we carelessly removed
model.graphicLike from their content model. I noticed this and
said "Hey, why can't my <char> have any <graphic/> elements in it
any more", put in a bug report, and model.graphicLike was added
back to the content model of <char>. I neglected to complain
about <glyph> because I don't really use it that much. But I was
about to answer "Why not use a <graphic/> inside your <glyph>?"
to a TEI-L posting when, upon checking, I found that I could not
do so. When I asked to restore model.graphicLike to <char> I
should have also said "and <glyph> as well". Mea culpa. In all
honesty I think this is just a corrigible bug rather than
something council should be bothered with, because to argue that
it shouldn't be added back to <glyph> you have to make an
argument for why <glyph>s can't have <graphic> and <char>s can,
or you have to argue against it being present in <char>'s content
model and say that it needs to be removed from both.
On the ticket I also briefly mention that lots of the constituent
members of the content model of <char> and <glyph> are identical
and wonder why they are not provided by a class. However, that is
really a separate bug.
Does this help?
-James
--
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service
OUCS, University of Oxford
More information about the tei-council
mailing list