[tei-council] Fwd: bug report for Council, if you like

[Martin Holmes]

Hi Sebastian,

On 10-10-02 09:20 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 2 Oct 2010, at 17:03, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
>>> I do think we must be consistent here, and allow @points to contain
>>> negative and fractional numbers.
>>
>> I agree on this, both for consistency and because I can imagine
>> use-cases for both.
>> c
>
> can you supply an example file, Martin, which exercises
> negative numbers?

I don't have an example of my own, but I could imagine (for instance) a 
series of <surface> elements that are treated as separate from because 
there are visible boundaries between them, but which are contiguous, and 
a <zone> which would run over the boundary between two <surface> 
elements; you might want to represent the <zone> on the <surface> which 
contains the largest area of it, and capture the fact that it extends 
onto a <surface> to the left by using negative coordinates.

> what do you think about closing the path?

I seem to recall a discussion about this before. Did we not decide that 
if a path is not closed, it would be deemed closed as if the first point 
were re-iterated as the last?

Cheers,
Martin

> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Information and Support Group Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>
>
>
>
>