lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Sat Aug 20 13:15:18 EDT 2011
On 20/08/11 18:09, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2011, at 18:04, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> [opening this discussion up to rest of council]
>> But this is just one example. Do we definitely not envisage anyone
>> wanting to use this element to wrap round a bunch of text actually
>> defining a licence rather than citing one?
> If you were defining a licence, I think it would be a<p> inside<availability>, as we have now (and as many people do).
> Since<licence> _does_ have the datable and pointable attributes, I'd argue its intention is to link to external
> but I too am happy to be to told I am entirely wrong
Would you not use the <p> to comment on which licences applied and in
which circs? And I suppose you might use it to talk about some
non-licence-related aspect of availability, though I confess can't think
of any real case.
On balance I think I'm coming round to the view that it's more of a
<ref> like beast. Other views?
More information about the tei-council