[tei-council] attribute names used in classes which are duplicated on elements

[Lou Burnard]

On 08/01/13 18:35, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
> On 13-01-08 10:21 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2013, at 18:15, Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>
>>    wrote:
>>>>    <g>/@ref is pretty much the same as att.canonical/@ref, but if we
>>>> add <gi> to att.canonical, it gains @key as well.  Is that a
>>>> Good Thing or a Bad Thing? obviously we can have the status quo,
>>>> by adding <attDef ident="key" mode="delete"/> to <g>
>>> I don't think we should add @key to anything, given that we're thinking
>>> of deprecating it.
>>>
>> but when we do so, we'll deprecate it in att. canonical,
>> so it will apply to everyone. arguably more honest.
> True, but in the meantime we'd be providing a new opportunity for people
> to use @key in a new context, only to deprecate it soon after.

Maybe we might revise our view on the heinousness of @key ? (cf recent 
discussion about lb/@ed)