[tei-council] 3519866... are we nearly there yet?

[Lou Burnard]

Many thanks for the quick feedback.


On 06/10/12 23:16, Kevin Hawkins wrote:

>
> Your CSS is invalid.  Instead of
>
> text-style:italic
>
> it is
>
> font-style:italic

Oh yes, of course. Fixed passim and seriatim
>
> However, I would actually use
>
> font-style: italic
>
> here (with the space) because you go on to imply that @style, unlike
> @rend, doesn't use space characters to separate tokens.
>
> I think it would be good to avoid the phrase "unconstrained tokens"
> since this is opaque to most readers.  I think you're going to need to
> explain that @rend may contain one or more tokens from any vocabulary
> devised by the encoder, each separated by space characters.  And instead
> of implying that @style doesn't use space to divide tokens, I would say
> it explicitly.


Reworded a bit to bring out this distinction more clearly.


> First of all, mention of <styleDefDecl> should also go in the list of
> children of <encodingDesc> at the beginning of section 2.3.

True. Fixed.

>
> In 2.3.4.1, I would change
>
> or either of the existing standard languages:
>
> to
>
> or any standard language such as

Except that we can't think of any other language. However, I have 
adopted your suggestion.

>
> Next, where you first mention <styleDefDecl> in 2.3.4.1, I would say
> that it is a child of <encodingDesc> since it's not clear where to find
> this element, which hasn't been mentioned recently.
>
> It seems to me that 2.3.4.2 (about <styleDefDecl>) should not be under
> 2.3.4 (about <tagsDecl>) since it is not a child of that element.
> Instead, it should be a child of 2.3.  Not sure what order to put it in:
> it depends on where in the list at the beginning of section 2.3 you
> insert it.

Yes, you're right. I hesitated quite a long time about where to put it, 
but have now I think moved it to the right place.


>
> In the section currently numbered 2.3.4.2, you say "whichever default
> style definition language is in force for the context in which it
> appears".  Are you referring to the numbered list (1 to 3) of what's
> applicable appearing in section 1.3.1.1.3?  If so, please
> cross-reference it.

No I didn't meant that at all. Have reworded as follows:

"<p>When the <att>style</att> attribute is used, its value must always
be expressed using whichever default style definition language is in
force. If more than one occurrence of the <gi>styleDefDecl</gi> is
provided, there will be more than one default available, and the
<att>decls</att> attribute must be used to select which is applicable
in a given context, as discussed in section <ptr
target="#CCAS"/>. </p>"

Hope this is less misleading.

Please take your time to produce the next tranch of corrections! I'm 
going to bed now.