lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Sat Nov 19 19:41:28 EST 2011
This is fine as a way of structuring the collection of names. But it
still begs the question as to why we have tagged the thing as a <signed>
in the first place. What's the added value in doing that rather than say
wrapping them all in a <p> or a <closer> ? What does <signed> MEAN?
On 20/11/11 00:35, Martin Holmes wrote:
> How about this:
> <persName>Fred Bloggs</persName>
> <persName>Joe Nonce</persName>
> <persName>A. Nonymous</persName>
> In the situation where something looks like a list, you could do this:
> <persName>Fred Bloggs</persName><lb/>
> <persName>Joe Nonce</persName><lb/>
> <persName>A. Nonymous</persName><lb/>
> Does this avoid the block vs. inline issue, and provide a simple
> solution to the multiple-signer conundrum?
> 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)
>> 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