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

[Pierazzo, Elena]

Sorry to come late into this discussion. The fact that Lou want to take
out @points from surface does it imply that all surfaces have to be
rectangular? This is so not the case, actually! Most modern manuscripts do
include patches that are not rectangular at all, not to mention that we
can find some writing we want to transcribe on supports of any shape...
Perhaps you mean that the digital image is rectangular? But if we use
<surface> to encode patches, they don't need to be on an image of their
own, surely. 
But maybe I have misunderstood what you mean here.

E

P.S. 38 email on the list between yesterday and today? On a weekend? Does
anybody need a life???



On 20/11/2011 15:18, "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
>On 20 Nov 2011, at 14:38, Lou Burnard wrote:
>
>> ... though I have just noticed that the definition for @points actually
>> says it "identifies a non-rectangular area *within the bounding box
>> specified by the other attributes*  by specifying
>> a series of pairs of numbers ... "
>
>ah indeed, we must have had this conversation before,
>and someone took the opposite view, that
>using the 4 separate attributes along with points
>is useful. fair does.
>
>> 
>> I would like to rephrase that as "identifies a polygon of any shape
>> using the co-ordinate system specied by its parent surface" for
>> consistency with the rest.
>> 
>sounds reasonable
>
>--
>Stormageddon Rahtz
>Head of Information and Support Group, Oxford University Computing
>Services
>13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
>Sólo le pido a Dios
>que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>
>-- 
>tei-council mailing list
>tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
>PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived