[tei-council] surfaces, surfaceGrps, etc. [was : minutes/release deadline]

[Lou Burnard]

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>.

indeed so

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