[tei-council] lite final update -- wot about w?

[Piotr Banski]

I understand Martin's objections but tend to lean towards a 
user-friendly, not-so-theoretically-supercoherent set of devices for 
Lite. <w> tastes lite. Or, conversely, its lack will litely raise eyebrows.

   P.

On 05/08/12 19:59, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Indeed yes, and there is an example showing how to use <seg type="lex">.
>
> The counter argument is
>
> a) lots of people do tokenisation and it seems sensible to offer a
> simple solution for that as well as the generic <seg> -- just as we
> offer both pb and milestone
>
> b) why then do we have pc (which is sugar for <seg type="punct"> or
> something? )
>
>
> <s> is slightly different from <seg>, since it's for end to end
> segmentation.
>
>
>
> On 05/08/12 18:54, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Perhaps it was omitted because you can use <seg type="word"> (and use
>> <seg> for all the other bits and pieces in the same way). I see <cl> and
>> <phr>, for instance, are also missing. Perhaps the oddity here is the
>> inclusion of <s>?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 12-08-05 05:13 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5 Aug 2012, at 00:03, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, I've just noticed something a bit odd which I missed on my
>>>> first go round and would like to ask Council's views about. I very
>>>> vaguely remember someone complaining that Lite does not include <w> --
>>>> although it does include <seg> <s> and <pc>.
>>>>
>>>
>>> thats a very puzzling omission. it seems like a no-brainer to include it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sebastian Rahtz
>>> Director (Research Support) of Academic IT Services
>>> University of Oxford IT Services
>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>