[tei-council] @facs on graphic

[Gabriel BODARD]

On 20/06/2012 22:02, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> Responses to two messages below ...
> On 6/20/2012 4:10 PM, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
>   > Agree utterly.
>   >
>   > It is to late (or too early) to suggest deprecating this aberration,
>   > perhaps in P6?
>
> It's only been out in the wild for a day or two, right?  I don't think
> it would break Birnbaum to remove the possibility of graphic at facs
> (somehow) if we really feel it's best.

That's not what I was suggesting at all, sorry. As Sebastian says, if 
you can have <graphic> in <text>, then that graphic might be 
representing something that you choose to describe and/or provide one or 
more images of in a surface or zone in the <facsimile>, so @facs on 
<graphic> is (a) perfectly sensible and (b) not saying the same thing as 
@url at all.

What I was suggesting (to a resounding chorus of no support, I suspect) 
was repairing the situation where @facs can point directly to an image 
file rather than to a zone/surface which *represents* (and may also 
describe and/or provide 1+ images of) the part of the document bearing 
this attribute. I was arguing that in P6, we should not allow these two 
divergent uses of the same attribute. (Once we cross over to P6, 
Birnbaum will no longer apply, right? We *want* to break backward 
compatibility between P5 and P6. :-) )

G


-- 
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/