[tei-council] surfaces, surfaceGrps, etc. [was : minutes/release deadline]
lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Sat Nov 12 13:26:37 EST 2011
On 12/11/11 18:14, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> ooh, I love it. For a start, I don't think<surfaceGrp> solves your fundament problem,
I say old chap, no remarks about my fundament if you please
> which arises from nested<surface>.
You _could_ add an attribute "relative=true|false",
as i suggested
> but that would mean making urx etc optional
why so? the problem is that when I see "ulx=10 uly=24" etc I dont know
how to interpret it. If it is not there I don't care.
. Hmm. How about simply saying that
> if any of urx, ury, llx, llr are missing, they are inherited from up the chain of<surface>?
if they are missing i have no info at all about where this surface is,
either relative or absolute. inheritance wont help me.
i fear you havent toadally groked this yet
More information about the tei-council