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

[Martin Holmes]

On 12-07-05 09:00 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that's the only solution. Surely @style (content = CSS) 
would solve the problem for those who want to use inline CSS? It's that 
group who raised the issue, and they're just asking for a legitimate way 
to use inline CSS, without offending the sensibilities of those who 
believe strongly that 1:n data.words is right and proper.

Cheers,
Martin

>    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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)