[tei-council] validation of examples

[James Cummings]

On 30/01/11 17:40, Martin Holmes wrote:
> On 11-01-30 09:24 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> I am now wondering whether the @break attribute on<lb/>
>> should take values "true" "false" and "unspecified" rather than "yes"
>> "no" and "maybe" as currently proposed.
>
> "maybe" is very different from "unspecified". I think omitting the
> @break attribute would be the same as making it "unspecified", wouldn't it?

Doesn't this return to a discussion of what the non-presence of an 
attribute means?  In transforming from one format to another I can 
picture a scenario where I want to indicate that it wasn't the case that 
I didn't pass an attribute along, but that indeed this was unspecified 
(or unable to be specified perhaps) in the original format.

With regard to @break, I think true/false/unspecified better than 
yes/no/maybe just because it sounds more formal. (Which I'm not sure is 
a good reason.)

-James


-- 
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
OUCS, http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/infodev/
University of Oxford