[tei-council] Fwd: bug report for Council, if you like
mholmes at uvic.ca
Sun Oct 3 14:13:58 EDT 2010
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.
> 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?
> 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
More information about the tei-council