[tei-council] Redundant note in <exemplum>

[Gabriel Bodard]

There's also a commented out section in here:

<!-- OK wise guy, so how *do* I get this example tagged legal? -->
     <!-- Make the enclosing CDATA marked section RCDATA           -->
     <!-- instead, and use &nil; inside the embedded msc (]]>) to  -->
     <!-- keep the parser from recognizing the msc.  Nothing       -->
     <!-- needs to be done about the embedded CDATA marked         -->
     <!-- section opener, since it will be ignored within an       -->
     <!-- RCDATA marked section. (msm)                             -->

Can anyone make head or tail of that? Delete it? Act on it? Or what?

I guess the question is, is the CDATA section in the <eg> supposed to be 
visible? Otherwise, I'm not sure this example expresses very well how 
<eg> is different from <egXML>...

G

On 2012-01-27 11:27, James Cummings wrote:
> On 27/01/12 11:22, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>> As far as I can see, the note at the bottom of the page
>> <http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-exemplum.html>
>> must date from when these elements were in SGML, since it warns coders
>> to use an explicit end-tag, which has long been required for all
>> elements in XML anyway.
>>
>> Any objection if I just delete this note from the source?
>
> That seems reasonable to me.
>
> -James
>
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/