[tei-council] another High Noon proposal

[Martin Holmes]

On 13-01-10 02:21 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 10/01/13 22:17, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>   > when you see that <abbr> joins att.typed, but eschews what it
> considers the affectation of @subtype, does that bother you slightly less?
>
> No, it bothers me just as much
>
>   > seriously, if you think this is making a rent in the space-time
> continuum through which Evil may flow, speak now, cos I have already
> used it in several places.
>
> 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.

Membership of an attribute class does not only consist in claiming 
membership; it also includes any subsequent modifications (such as 
deleting attributes) that are made to what the class provides. In other 
words, membership is not simply binary.

Attribute classes are handy tools for gathering together sets of 
attributes likely to be used together, not, surely, a way of claiming 
that their members all have identical needs. If you join the Masons but 
don't go to all the meetings, you're still a Mason, aren't you?

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)