[tei-council] genetic proposals: follow up (long!)
Kevin Hawkins
kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info
Fri Jun 10 23:12:41 EDT 2011
One question here ...
On 6/6/11 8:19 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Following our discussions in Chicago, I sent an email to the working
> group, as proposed, outlining and summarizing the Council's opinions.
> I've just received from Elena a summary of the group's reaction to
> this., based on a conversation she had with them last week.
[. . .]
> > >Firstly, the proposal for a new<document> element.
> > >
> > >The minutes say "Council recognised and endorsed the use case for a
> > >view of the encoded physical object, comprising surfaces, zones,
> > >patches, and optionally lines of writing. diploma was suggested as an
> > >alternative name. Discussion focussed chiefly on the distinction
> > >between the proposed<document> and the existing<facsimile>
> > >elements. Some expressed concern that it would be difficult to explain
> > >and justify this distinction; others felt that the two were entirely
> > >discrete. It might be possible to regard the existing<facsimile> as a
> > >special case of the proposed<document> , even though (for example)
> > >the<zone> s identified within a<facsimile> might be motivated by
> > >other factors than those identified within a<document> . We agreed
> > >that it might be useful to find out whether the proposed user
> > >community would find it unacceptable to embed the image information
> > >currently managed by<facsimile> within the proposed<document>
> > >element."
> > >
> > >So the question is: do you feel that it would be appropriate to
> > >combine the functionality of the existing<facsimile> with the
> > >proposed<document> ? If we agree on that, then it will be necessary
> > >to think up a new name (which is neither "document" nor "facsimile").
Perhaps I've forgotten or missed this part of the discussion in Chicago,
but I don't see why it follows that we need a new name. Instead,
couldn't we simply expand the semantics of the proposed <document>
element so that <document type="facsimile"> would be the new preferred
way of doing <facsimile>? Then <facsimile> could either be deprecated
for future use or left in the Guidelines as syntactic sugar.
--Kevin
More information about the tei-council
mailing list