[tei-council] invalid examples allowed in Guidelines?
James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Tue Jan 11 05:23:31 EST 2011
On 11/01/11 09:44, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> James has an interesting counter proposal, that we should make all
> the examples entirely valid, but add a new attribute @noDisplay in the TEIX namespace.
Just to elaborate on this. The idea is that when we are missing
out elements in TEI examples we are doing so *only* for a reason
of presentation. (Changes to ODD to allow other things, I would
contend is a separate issue.)
It would, however, be better if the user could choose to see the
missing bits or not in some cases, and the example was when fully
shown a valid chunk of TEI. So my suggesting is *slightly*
different from what Sebastian suggests below. Instead of putting
the attribute on the <fileDesc> I would have put it on the child
elements since you may wish to hide some of them and not others.
Moreover I would not have this be a binary true/false but
instead have something like: 'collapsed', 'expanded', 'hidden',
So instead of:
> <egXML xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/Examples" xmlns:teix="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/Examples">
> <fileDesc teix:noDisplay='true'>
> <title>The title</title>
we might have:
which would be shown in a web view as something like:
<!-- tei:titleStmt collapsed for display click to expand -->
<!-- tei:sourceDesc hidden for display -->
i.e. the 'collapsed' titleStmt is able to be clicked to expand
and appear, the publicationStmt is always visible, the
editionStmt is not visible or commented upon, the sourceDesc is
not visible but commented upon. In printed media collapsed and
hidden would be handled identically. Things should only be
marked as 'invisible' if the example is entirely valid without
them but for some reason we wanted to include it. (e.g.
maintaining fidelity with an existing example, or using the same
example multiple times with different bits invisible or hidden.)
> What do others think of this? I find it rather elegant, and has exactly the
> right effect.
I hope this expansion on it is equally elegant. While you can
talk me out of the need for 'invisible' probably, I would argue
that it isn't a binary opposition of displayed and nonDisplayed
that we need but notedAsAComment, collapsed and expanded.
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service
OUCS, University of Oxford
More information about the tei-council