[tei-council] surfaces, surfaceGrps, etc. [was : minutes/release deadline]
lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Sat Nov 19 13:25:24 EST 2011
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
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
<zone xml:id="z2" coords="12,45,45,45">...</zone>
<zone xml:id="z3" coords="3,2,7,8"> ... </zone>
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?
More information about the tei-council