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

[Gabriel Bodard]

This makes a lot of sense to me. (I mean, I'm still in favour of the 
"What's wrong with @rendition if you're a CSS-head" approach, but that's 
less Solomonic as it doesn't seem to please anyone.)

I certainly think if we're allowing CSS somewhere, we should make some 
attempt to validate that css (or at least make sure someone isn't 
putting RTF style instructions in there, vel sim.).

And I'm not a big fan of the token|free|css choice in the header, 
because are we *sure* that everyone is always going to want to treat 
@rend the same way on *all* elements? (I can imagine using @rend, @style 
and even @rendition concurrently in different contexts in one teiCorpus.)

On 2012-07-05 17:58, Martin Holmes wrote:

> On 12-07-05 09:30 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> since its unlikely we'll ever now close this awful Pandora's box.
>
> I don't see why not. I think everyone (like me) currently abusing @rend
> by putting CSS in there can very easily switch to a new attribute
> (@style) instead. Anyone who refused to do so would remain guilty of
> attribute abuse, but without the excuse that they had no alternative
> (yes, I know there's always customization, but...). We could perhaps
> back up the move with a Schematron constraint that would complain at the
> appearance of semi-colons and colons in @rend, to encourage compliance,
> and we could even provide some degree of Schematron validation for CSS
> in @style.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/