[tei-council] genetic proposals: follow up (long!)

Martin Holmes mholmes at uvic.ca
Mon Jun 13 10:46:30 EDT 2011

Hi there,

On 11-06-10 08:12 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:

>>    >   >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.

Most of us didn't like the proposed <document>, for a variety of 
reasons, so I do think a new name would be appropriate (and I still like 
<diploma>). I also wouldn't mind proposing that the genetic folks think 
about keeping <facsimile>, perhaps with <facsimile type="genetic">. That 
would give us perfect backwards compatibility and no deprecation.

Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)

More information about the tei-council mailing list