[tei-council] http://purl.org/tei/fr/3519866 (@rend datatype)

[Lou Burnard]

I'm a very nice reasonable person, and I have quite strong views on this 
subject too! Not to pre-empt further discussion, I observe that the 
current datatype (1:n data.words) was a change deliberately (and quite 
recently) introduced to appease those who were uncomfortable with the 
requirement to predefine styles, implicit in using @rendition.

It does not really permit arbitrary syntax (like rendition ladders or 
local CSS), so that (legacy) constituency remains unsatisfied. At the 
same time, it requires the user to tell fibs, so that progressive (if 
anal) thinkers are also dissatisfied with it. As I said on the ticket, 
the only sensible way to resolve this issue is to return to the status 
quo ante bellum.


  On 30/06/12 15:29, James Cummings wrote:
>
> Would it make sense for two nice reasonable people (like Martin
> and Piotr) on opposite sides of the discussion to look at it as
> an ad-hoc group?  (Possibly with someone who doesn't have an
> opinion one way or the other?)  They could then report back to
> the face2face?
>
> -James
>
>
> On 29/06/12 21:40, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> I'm on the other side of this debate, and equally biased. I agree that
>> we need to take this on as a group, but I'd suggest scheduling it on the
>> last day of the ftf so that if we get all heated about it, there'll be a
>> natural end to the discussion. :-)
>>
>> On 12-06-29 12:59 PM, Piotr Bański wrote:
>>> My view is similar to yours, so I'm not sure whether I would properly
>>> serve the greater good here. In case no one wants it, I can try, though
>>> this is now, I think, a very sore issue. It might be a good idea for the
>>> Council to act as a body on this.
>>>
>>> Maybe we could take it on in September?
>>>
>>>      P.
>>>
>>> On 29/06/12 14:33, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there someone who feels they can be neutral and objective who
>>>> would like to take on http://purl.org/tei/fr/3519866 which is the
>>>> ticket discussing whether @rend's datatype should be changed?
>>>> I'd prefer someone who is not already very much for or against
>>>> this to look at it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm hideously biased against loosening its datatype and the
>>>> existing recommendations that @rend values are separate tokens,
>>>> so don't feel I should take it on myself.  If you've not been
>>>> involved in the discussion so far and/or know nothing about it,
>>>> you might be the right person to re-examine it.
>>>>
>>>> -James
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>