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

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 5 Jan 2013, at 22:10, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
 wrote:

> I think most people who actually use @ed are quite comfortable with the 
> idea of referring to an edition by means of a siglum such as "1815" or 
> "Blenkinsop" without any particular need to point to an explanation of 
> what that edition is.

indeed. how do you answer António Rito Silva, though? by adding edRef?

> That's why it was originally defined in this way 
> at any rate. Insisting that it become a pointer seems a bit harsh to me.

well, except that it _is_ a pointer, and has been so for 4 years now....

--
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