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

[Kevin Hawkins]

On 12/29/12 10:51 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough, even though the "needs to <att>level</att> attribute" is 
still strictly true.

>>> 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.

Possibly, though the "however" sentence follows the one about appearing 
directly within <analytic>, <monogr>, and <series>, so it seems to me 
that we are giving this recommendation only in the case that <title> 
appears directly within <analytic>, <monogr>, and <series>.  Maybe that 
recommendation should be expanded to other positions in which <title> 
may appear (such as in a <bibl> or elsewhere in the document).  Or we 
should revert this particular change from revision 7964.

>> 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!

Oops.  2010-04-24, as in the timestamp on the message at the URL.