[tei-council] Hyphenation discussion

Lou Burnard lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Wed Jan 19 15:17:10 EST 2011

Well, if this ball is really still in the air, is it worth revisiting my 
much earlier proposal of
something like @wordBreaking = "yes" , "no", "dunno" ?

Advantages: adresses concerns expressed by someone (Martin ?) that @type 
might be needed for some other kind of typology entirely; is 
unambiguous, could be generalised to other elements without confusion.

Disadvantage: breaks backward compatibility (but not much, since the 
current state of affairs is no more than a suggestion anyway.)

On 17/01/11 11:47, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> On the whole I'm agnostic about the values used in this case, so long as
> they're unambiguous (which they seem to be).
> Wearing my EpiDoc hat, I am concerned that we (EpiDoc) follow as closely
> as possible the canonical TEI recommendation, which is precisely why we
> recently changed our recommended usage from "worddiv" to Lou's preferred
> "inWord". It's a little saddening to see this now being preserved only
> for backward compatibility with "existing recommendations". :-(
> But if "noBreak" and "mayBreak" are more clear, and mirror nicely, then
> so be it (and, with Sebastian, I would sooner have one recommendation
> than two, even if it means persuading EpiDoc to change again). Certainly
> I don't think "maybeInWord" would be attractive. But perhaps then, as
> Piotr points out, the ambiguity of "mayBreak" demands more values; or
> rather, I would suggests, it suggests we should use<certainty/>  to
> specify how and for what reason we are uncertain about the value of
> "noBreak" (which then might as well be "inWord").
> Another question: preserving the nice mirroring or "noBreak" and
> "mayBreak", what value would we give for the positive side of this coin?
> "doesBreak"? (Serious question: while this would normally be the default
> value, I can certainly imagine cases where I'd want to specify the value
> of all linebreaks in a text, for example where lineation is completely
> unrelated to tokenization--as on coins, seals, stoichedon inscriptions,
> etc.)
> G
> On 16/01/2011 21:26, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Many thanks for helpful improvements.
>> Now standing by for input from other council members.
>> Gabby, what's your take on the proposed values for @type?
>> On 16/01/11 17:37, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> I'm broadly in favour, but some nitpicks below
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

More information about the tei-council mailing list