[tei-council] [TEI-notify] SF.net SVN: tei:[11278] trunk/P5/Source/Guidelines/en/CO-CoreElements.xml

[Lou Burnard]

On 29/12/12 14:07, Kevin Hawkins wrote:

> Actually, the prose no longer says this (see below), so in this latest
> commit I corrected the example so that the Merlin example no longer has
> an inferred value of @level.

I'm referring to the following:

"In this case, the analytic title <q>Notes on Manuscripts of the
<title level="m" xml:lang="fr">Prophécies de Merlin</title></q> needs no 
<att>level</att>
attribute because it is directly contained by an <gi>analytic</gi>
element. The  monographic title it contains similarly needs no
<att>level</att> attribute, since it is a constituent of the analytic
title. "

which follows an example in which the @level attribute *is* supplied, on 
both <title>s. I think that's rather confusing.


>
>> A sentence has been added earlier saying that we recommend always
>> supplying the @level attribute, which I don't recall our having
>> discussed as such.
>
> Following the sentence "When it appears directly within an
> <gi>analytic</gi>, <gi>monogr</gi>, or <gi>series</gi> element,
> <gi>title</gi> is interpreted as belonging to the appropriate level.",
> the Guidelines used to say:
>
> When it appears elsewhere, its <att>level</att> attribute should be used
> to signal its bibliographic level.
>
> But at revision 7964, Lou changed it to:
>
> However, it is recommended that the <att>level</att> attribute should
> always be used to signal this explicitly

No need to be ad hominem about this. I stand by my assertion that this 
recommendation needs more justification (f  @level is not
 >> mandatory on <title> (which it currently isn't) then we ought to explain
 >> in what circs it can be omitted, and how its absence is to be
 >> interpreted, (as we currently do more or less). And we ought to have
 >> some examples showing it being omitted, obv.

>
> This was one of the changes recommended in the biblio document
> circulated on tei-council on 2012-04-24 (

I think that date is a bit unlikely!