[tei-council] att.sourced (<lb ed="1674">) contradiction

[Gabriel Bodard]

What about all the people who are now using @ed to contain a cRef like 
string that "conventionally expresses" the edition that has a linebreak 
at this point? (They should stop and start using a pointer instead of a 
cRef, I agree, but backwards compatibility?) I'm not sure if I'm 
suggesting forking @ed into @ed-string and @ed-ref, but I worry a little 
bit about it.

Gabby

On 05/01/2013 13:11, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 5 Jan 2013, at 03:38, Kevin Hawkins <kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info> wrote:
>
>> Looking through the history in Subversion, I see that att.sourced has
>> had data.code since the beginning, when it was implemented as part of
>> http://purl.org/TEI/FR/2216574 .
>
> true. but what we're missing is a collective memory of how we intended
> data.code to work. It isn't used anywhere else except att.sourced, and
> I cant recall now why it is different to data.pointer. I think I remember there _was_
> discussion about that, but I can't trace it.
>
> Mr Occam would suggest that the correct course of action could be
>
>    - remove data.code
>    - change att.sourced to use data.pointer
>    - change prose to say that @ed must point to something
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> http://www.justgiving.com/SebastianRahtz
> Director (Research Support) of Academic IT Services
> University of Oxford IT Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher 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/