[tei-council] another High Noon proposal

[James Cummings]

This discussion clarifies things in my mind:

a) On principle I think anything that has @type should have 
@subtype (if it can be classified it can be sub-classified).

b) The main purpose for allowing local in-place modifications was 
to rationalise things like @type appearing in different places 
but having slightly different descs or suggested valLists.  But 
this underscores a principle I think: Claiming membership in a 
class does *not* mean you claim everything that class 
provides/enables. I maybe be a member of a club, but that does 
not mean I also pay the extra supplement to use the gym. I vote 
that we should be allowed to delete attributes from a particular 
element's use of that class exactly as Sebastian did first. (Ok, 
if in this case adding @subtype is easier, I'm fine with that, 
see a. above) So if <elementFoo> has @type but not @subtype (for 
whatever reason) then I would rather it was a member of att.typed 
but only claimed to get @type from it than it have its own local 
@type

c) My unfounded belief is that the majority of users look at 
<elementFoo> reference page and see that it has this-or-that 
attribute. They may notice that they get this attribute from 
this-or-that class, but they won't care that the desc is slightly 
modified or there is a slightly different suggested valList. 
They'll think it is good that @type on title has suggestions for 
types of titles rather than really vague and general types.

My tuppence,

-James

On 11/01/13 14:42, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> the @subtype discussion seems different from the @url one.
>
> It seems simplest to to just change abbr and title to give them @subtype regardless, so i have just done that
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Director (Research Support) of Academic IT Services
> University of Oxford IT Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>


-- 
Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford