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

[Pierazzo, Elena]

On 13/11/2011 21:17, "Piotr Bański" <bansp at o2.pl> wrote:


>I tried to find today a compelling argument for the direct nesting of
><surface>s, having recalled Elena's initial objections to that. Do I get
>it right that it arises from 'un-sugaring' <patch>, or from the
>functional equivalence of a single <surface> with <surfaceGrp>, or both,
>or...?

The reason we have unsugared patch is that, once we have agreed we needed
a system to mark recto and verso on patches, we could not see why this was
not to be applied to surfaces as well, so we said why implement the same
system twice, for patches and for surface? At this point it is better to
get back to the more general case and use only surface. Patch was not an
happy choice of name either, which facilitate its dismissal.

Not sure about the three options offered by Lou, but possibly the first,
in case it is possible to enforce, seems the neater one. WE need a system
that anchor the inner surface within the parent surface and we need a
system to define relative coordinates within that surface.
The proposal advanced by Sebastian to use zone is not acceptable, I'm
afraid, as it is actually of a surface that we are talking and not of a
zone.
E

-------
Dr Elena Pierazzo
Lecturer in Digital Humanities
Chair of the Teaching Committee
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Phone: 0207-848-1949
Fax: 0207-848-2980
elena.pierazzo at kcl.ac.uk
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ddh