[tei-council] CH and BCP 47 again

[Piotr Banski]

(found this message accidentally)

By this logic, we shouldn't bother to insert xml:langs in bilingual 
dictionaries. I'd have no problem with a uniform declaration that <pron> 
in that very dictionary is always to be interpreted as this-and-that 
script, and that <quote> inside <cit @type="translation"> is to be 
interpreted so-and-so.

Except we don't seem to have such a mechanism, do we? In which case, I 
can't see a good reason to skip this very relevant information. The 
result is massive redundancy, but well, that's a fact, this is what we 
recommend, so why avoid stating this openly in the Guidelines?

Best,

   P.


On 27/06/12 04:07, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> There is no particular exception to use of @xml:lang on <pron> that I am
> aware of.  As a global attribute, @xml:lang may be used on any element
> but need not be used anywhere.
>
> I am inclined not to bother inserting @xml:lang on these examples.  If
> you encode a dictionary, every <pron> will likely use the same script as
> every other <pron>, and this will be the only part of the dictionary
> using this script (whatever it is).  I can't imagine a use case for
> recording on individual <pron>s.
>
> --K.
>
> On 6/26/12 5:14 PM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
>> On a related note (and not covered in CH or BCP 47 as far as I can tell):
>>
>> Almost all the <pron/> examples in
>> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/examples-pron.html
>> use a different script to the surrounding text, but none of them have
>> an xml:lang attribute describing that.
>>
>> Does <pron/> have an exception from xml:lang, or do we need to add
>> them to the examples?
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>
>