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

[Gabriel Bodard]

I think my instinct would be to go with (b) and, as Sebastian says, 
worry about paths when and if they're needed. But perhaps the easiest is 
just to say definitely not (a) (so no validation), but allow individual 
implementations to assume (b) or (c) as appropriate.

On 04/10/2010 23:55, James Cummings wrote:
> On 04/10/10 20:53, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Right. So the only remaining question is one Sebastian raised, and which
>> I couldn't find the answer to in our previous correspondence: do we:
>>
>> a) Require that the last component of a polygon be identical to the
>> first, thus closing the polygon, and deem the attribute value invalid if
>> this is not the case; or
>>
>> b) Deem any attribute value whose final coordinate is not identical to
>> its first to be closed anyway, thus assuming the existence of the final
>> point where it is not explicit; or
>>
>> c) Allow that some shapes may not be closed (in other words, they may be
>> paths), and therefore assume that any shape not explicitly closed is open.
>>
>> Thoughts? My instinct is to be permissive and choose c), but then we
>> have the issue of possible conflict between the definition of a<zone>
>> and the idea of a path. That's somewhat moot anyway, because the current
>> definition of a<zone>   is inconsistent with @points:
>
> I would also say c).  I think the TEI should be providing the general
> solution here for both paths and areas.  I think having a) or b) is a
> matter for local encoding guidelines and/or processing.  I recognise
> that b) is probably the most common way it would be used, but don't see
> how it really benefits us to make this a requirement rather than just a
> common practice.
>
> -James
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher, Digital Classicist, Pirate)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/