[tei-council] signed/list

[Martin Holmes]

How about this:

<signed>
   <persName>Fred Bloggs</persName>
   <persName>Joe Nonce</persName>
   <persName>A. Nonymous</persName>
</signed>

In the situation where something looks like a list, you could do this:

<signed>
   <persName>Fred Bloggs</persName><lb/>
   <persName>Joe Nonce</persName><lb/>
   <persName>A. Nonymous</persName><lb/>
</signed>

Does this avoid the block vs. inline issue, and provide a simple 
solution to the multiple-signer conundrum?

Cheers,
Martin

On 11-11-19 01:34 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>
>
> 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)
> multiple<signed>.
>
> 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
>
> http://purl.org/tei/bug/3439980
>
> 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!)