[tei-council] another High Noon proposal

[Lou Burnard]

On 10/01/13 22:30, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2013, at 22:21, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
>   wrote:
>> Well, yes, metaphors apart it does seem to me that if we allow attributes to be deleted from some members of an attribute class, but not others, we are rather calling into question just what "membership of an attribute class" means.
>>
> It's like a macro; its a convenient, named, way of doing a set of common things. you can temper it by saying eg "yes I want the breakfast menu,
> but my standard order is to hold the eggs".  if the breakfast menu tomorrow gains an extra ingredient (black pudding), you'll get your
> usual eggless dish, but with the black pudding. sorry about more metaphors.

I'm thinking about it the other way round. If I see something on the 
menu claiming to be "English breakfast"  I will feel cheated if the 
hotel has unilaterally decided eggs is off.
Where will does it tell me that on the menu?

Most people, I claim, don't want to modify or understand the class 
system. For them, the class system is just a shorthand way of saying 
"you get these attributes". What we discussed during the summer was ways 
of constraining the behaviour or options available with some of the 
attributes, e.g. adding a closed valList. OK, removing an attribute 
entirely is a pretty effective way of constraining its values, but it 
still seems to me a horse of a different colour.

However, I will now shut up and see what other interested parties think. 
If there are any, and they do.