[tei-council] another High Noon proposal

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 11 Jan 2013, at 00:06, Syd Bauman <Syd_Bauman at BROWN.EDU> wrote:

> 
> * Since the dawn of P5, if an <elementSpec> says "I am a member of
>  att.foo", it gains the attrs defined in att.foo.
> 
> * Since shortly thereafter (and before release of P5) an element
>  could also say "but I don't want that one" using <attDef
>  mode="delete">.
yes. its always been true that a customization can say it does not want
one of the attribute class members.

now we support this form of modification purely within the Guidelines themselves,
before the customization comes anywhere near it. <abbr>
is a member of att.typed, but rejects @subtype. So your customization
cannot put that @subtype back easily, it is absent from the start of your
view of the Guidelines
> 
> * The Guidelines, however, only take advantage of this capability to
>  remove @subtype from <abbr> and <title>. ...
> 
> * Something happened this summer to make this more obvious or easier.


what happened last summer was the _implementation_ of this facility. it didn't
exist before last July at all.  I used it on <abbr> and <title> to prove it worked
(and changed the <desc> as well, I think) and assumed this was what
we had intended all along.

this week I used it again, to make <binaryObject> a member of att.media,
but remove the @url attribute from the inherited set. This is what Lou
noticed, and realized that it upset him.

So nothing has changed since last year, just that the uses of the
facillty start to cause raised eyebrows.

Your task is decide whether you think use of <attDef mode="delete" ..> should
be banned in the P5 source.

[no metaphors were used in the preparation of this message. possibly some anthropomorphism]
--
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