kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info
Sat Nov 19 16:34:39 EST 2011
On 11/19/11 4:12 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 19/11/11 20:30, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> Still, even with a narrow definition of<signed> that said to use this
>> for only names of people signing, I don't see why we wouldn't allow
>> people to include an embedded<list> with an<item> around each name. I
>> realize the content model wouldn't be as elegant as use of
>> model.nameLike, as Lou proposed, but I don't see how we could justify
>> not allowing<list> here.
> There is a difference between "signed by Kevin Barry Cholmondeleye
> Smythe Benkins Hawkins" (one person) and "signed by Kevin Barry
> Cholmondeleye Smythe Benkins Hawkins" (three people), right?
> I can see a case for allowing<list> inside<signed> in either case
> (though it makes more sense in the first).
Lou, I don't understand what you're saying. The string of characters in
each is identical, and I'm not sure how I would read *either* as
denoting one or three persons. Can you give less fantastical examples?
> I really think we ought to
> decide whether the second case requires three<signed> elements or
> <one>. The Guidelines are ambiguous on this point, and it is therefore
> up to us to clarify them -- this is not a P6 issue, it's something where
> the Guidelines are currently under specified or confusing, what we might
> even call "A Bug".
I agree that we should clarify our guidelines on whether, in the case of
more than one person signing, you should use (A) one <signed> or (B)
It sounds like if we think you should use only one <signed> (A), then
the problem elicited by the TCP (of wanting to use <list> within it)
still stands unless we act upon
whereas if we say to use <signed> around each name (B), then we could
tell the TCP to fix their encoding to conform, and, while we're thinking
about this, we might tighten the content model of <signed>. However, ...
> My recommendation is not to change the content model
> but to clarify the way the existing content model should be used.
Oh, so you retract your wish to "see the content of <signed> narrowed
down to include only model.nameLike vel sim."? That is, we would
continue to allow people to use <signed> for more than one name as
allowed by its current, sloppy content model? (Just checking that I'm
following what's going on!)
More information about the tei-council