[tei-council] nym/@parts

[Kevin Hawkins]

+1

On 2/1/12 6:43 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
> As a general rule, whenever you create a fixed array of a size you think
> is more than anyone could need, a need immediately arises for more.
> One-to-infinite is easier than explaining why a limit exists at all. I
> vote for change.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 12-02-01 03:31 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Nope, don't remember why. Presumably someone thought, not implausibly,
>> that allowing more than 100 values was rather silly, as James suggests.
>>
>>
>> On 01/02/12 23:06, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>> At first I thought it must be a typo -- someone copying from
>>> one-to-infinity on another attribute and misreading it as 1-100 -- but
>>> SVN says different:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> r2418 | louburnard | 2007-05-07 14:36:57 -0700 (Mon, 07 May 2007) | 2 lines
>>>
>>> removing @old on handShift; allowing up to 100 targets for nym at parts
>>>
>>>
>>> Lou, do you remember why?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 12-02-01 02:39 PM, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hiya,
>>>>
>>>> In reading through things (and correcting non-schema things
>>>> relating to an old bug assigned to me) I happened to notice:
>>>>
>>>> http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca:8080/job/TEIP5-Documentation/ws/Guidelines-web/en/html/ref-nym.html
>>>>
>>>> The @parts attribute on<nym>     is limited to 1 - 100 occurrences
>>>> of data.pointer.  Although I can't picture a good use case for
>>>> more than 50 myself... there are plenty of places where we allow
>>>> 1 - infinity pointers as an attribute value.  Why are we so
>>>> specific that there can't be more than 100 on nym/@part in specific?
>>>>
>>>> I ask this in full knowledge that I have hazy recollection of
>>>> being part of the working group that introduced<nym>, but no
>>>> recollection of the seemingly arbitrary limit in itself.
>>>>
>>>> Just curious,
>>>>
>>>> -James
>>>>
>>>
>>
>