[tei-council] CH and BCP 47 again
kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info
Tue Jul 3 01:34:13 EDT 2012
Okay, I see what Piotr is saying now.
Such advice -- add elements and attributes to mark up only those
features of a text that are useful for processing, not everything you
can identify -- is a sort of high-level recommendation that applies not
just to dictionaries. Maybe we should add a sentence or two to
By the way, who maintains the XSLT/CSS to generate HTML of the
Guidelines? I just noticed that "Intended Use" and "Use in Text Capture
and Text Creation" are showing up in the same font size even though the
latter is a lower-level heading.
On 7/2/12 9:21 AM, Piotr Banski wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
>>>> 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
>>>>> 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?
More information about the tei-council