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

[Lou Burnard]

On 14/11/11 10:57, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2011, at 05:09, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
>> <zone>  should be able to contain<surface>. You define a<zone>  to show
>> the contextualized coordinates of the patch or whatever in the parent
>> <surface>  coordinate space, then you put a<surface>  in it; the latter
>> can then define its own coordinate space for<zone>s inside it.
>>
>> So the coordinates on<zone>s mean "my position and size in the parent
>> space", and the coordinates on<surface>  mean "the coordinate space in
>> which child<zone>s will be defined".
>

Sorry to come back to this after such a long pause. Let's see if I've 
got it right yet:

We distinguish two use cases:

a. a surface within a surface, both using the same coord system

b. a surface within a surface, which sets up a new coord system

Using the (despised and rejected) @coords attribute simply in order to 
save typing time, case (a) would thus be

<surface coords="1,1,10,10">
   <zone coords="2,3,7,8">
       <surface >...</surface>
   </zone>

i.e. the inner surface inherits its size and position from its parent 
zone: it's at 2,3,7,8 on a scale running 1-10 in either direction

Case (b) would be

<surface coords="1,1,10,10">
    <zone coords="2,2,5,5">
       <surface coords="1,1,100,100">...</surface>
		<zone xml:id="z2" coords="12,45,45,45">...</zone>
       </surface>
    </zone>
<zone xml:id="z3" coords="3,2,7,8"> ... </zone>

</surface>

here the inner surface located at 2,2,5,5 defines its own much finer 
coordinate system, running 1-100 in either direction. The zone with id 
z2 is expressed using that system. Whereas the zone with id z3 is 
specified using the 1-10, 1-10 scale.

Did we agree by the way, that <surfaceGrp> can take coordinates, and 
behave in the same way as <surface> ?

And did we agree on how to interpret the case where a <surface> contains 
both coordinates and @points?