[tei-council] CH and BCP 47 again

[Piotr Banski]

My point is that this is what we are actually led to recommend for 
real-life encoding, if that is to be machine-readable in the absence of 
any extra mechanisms.

And further, that if we are indeed recommending this, then that should 
be recorded in the Guidelines.

And next, that if we choose not to recommend using @xml:lang in such 
cases, we should probably indicate that in the Guidelines, as a 
"feature" of our encoding proposals.

I fully agree with you that this means massive redundancy, I'm just 
saying that I can't see a way to avoid that, given our recommendations.

We might always say that for many/most projects, this can be handled at 
the level of the ODD, and only those projects which can't use ODD for 
that have to resort to massive redundancy straight inside XML instances.

Best,

   P.

On 02/07/12 14:48, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>
>
> On 7/2/12 8:30 AM, Piotr Banski wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's all that I was implying!  I didn't mean to say that there is any
> sort of global mechanism.
>
> My point was that these examples are supposed to look like someone's
> real-life encoding.  And in real-life encoding, you're unlikely to add
> @xml:lang to every <pron> (or to <quote> inside <cit
> @type="translation">) in a single bilingual dictionary.
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>