[tei-council] @rows="0", @cols="0"?

[Gabriel Bodard]

Happy to concede that my examples make no sense. :-)

However, what *harm* would a value of zero actually do in there, if 
someone inserted one in a table because their processing (or their 
understanding) expected it? I kind of vote for ignoring it...

G

On 2013-02-04 02:07, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand Gaby's example below, but I have a feeling
> that if the intention is to say that it's cell B that's missing from row
> 2, and cell C that's missing from row 3, then I think empty cells would
> be included; as far as I can see, if the second cell spans both columns,
> it somehow constitutes both of them.
>
> Next question: given that we mostly seem to feel that values of zero are
> wrong, would we go so far as to forbid them through Schematron (given
> that every Schematron check adds to build time and code complexity), or
> should we just quietly allow people to perpetrate zeroes without sanction?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 13-02-02 10:04 AM, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>> I feel as though the answer to this ought to be yes (even if only in a
>> hypothetical, never-really-going-to-happen kind of way) but I'm not sure
>> I can think of even that. Trying to twist my mind...
>>
>> Would you ever get a case when a table (in the proper sense of a series
>> of rows, each cell in which lines up semantically with a column heading
>> above) has both spanning cells and absent cells (that would need to be
>> so marked)?
>>
>> So if the table has columns A, B, C, and rows 1, 2, 3, with a structure
>> something like:
>>
>> <table cols="4">
>>      <row>
>>        <cell role="label">A</cell>
>>        <cell role="label">B</cell>
>>        <cell role="label">C</cell>
>>      </row>
>>      <row>
>>        <cell role="label">1</cell>
>>        <cell>1A</cell>
>>        <cell>1B</cell>
>>        <cell>1C</cell>
>>      </row>
>>      <row>
>>        <cell role="label">2</cell>
>>        <cell cols="2">2A</cell>
>>        <cell>3C</cell>
>>      </row>
>>      <row>
>>        <cell role="label">3</cell>
>>        <cell cols="2">3A</cell>
>>        <cell>3B</cell>
>>      </row>
>> </table>
>>
>> How can you tell from the markup (given the content is arbitrary) that
>> row 3 does not have the same structure as row 2? Would a <cell
>> cols="0"/> in row 2 make it clearer that there is no value for column
>> "B" in that row?
>>
>> That's the best I can do. I'm not sure even I'm convinced.
>>
>> G
>>
>> On 01/02/2013 18:33, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>> I'm working on this ticket:
>>>
>>> http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3511398
>>>
>>> where the objective is to express any constraint on an attribute value
>>> which is currently only expressed in a valDesc as Schematron so it can
>>> be enforced. So far the only candidates I've found for this are @rows
>>> and @cols in att.tableDecoration. These are data.count, which permits
>>> zero, but the valDescs would seem to imply that zero is wrong.
>>>
>>> Can anyone think of a scenario in which it would be reasonable to have:
>>>
>>> <row cols="0">
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> <cell rows="0">?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/