[tei-council] Should Roma be doing this?

[Syd Bauman]

I agree that <list> is rather tricky, now that you point out that
type= is often used to indicate what the list *looked like in the
original* (because, of course, except for those of us foolish enough
to use TEI to write things like papers and websites, nobody forgets
the TEI is about the input, not the output). But perhaps, with the
exception of "gloss" (which really means "I'm using <list> to encode
a 2-column <table> because it's easier), we don't need type= for this
purpose at all. After all, we already have rend=, rendition=, and
style=.

Saying that a transcribed list is "ordered" seems a bit silly. Of
course it's ordered, and not only that, I've encoded the items in
that order. But perhaps "ordered" means "it has numbers (or letters)
in front of each item", in which case rend=, rendition=, or style=
seems like the more appropriate place to record that information. But
perhaps "ordered" means "I am asserting that the order of these items
was important to the author", in which case ana= seems more
appropriate, no?

But of course, when <list> is used in an authorial instead of
transcriptional way, saying "ordered" is asserting "I want these
things in this order, and numbered please" which seems quite helpful.

I guess my point here (besides that I'm *really* tired) is that we
should re-think list/@type entirely.

> i think this case, <list>, is rather tricky, as the @type is rather
> vital. Usually, having no @type on an element is fine, but it is
> used very often with <list> to effectively indicate rendition.
> 
> having a <defaultVal> is a confusion, as noted, but some prose
> indicating what an untyped list _does_ represent would be useful.
> 
> it would be nice to have a facsimile of what the example from Pope
> Hadrian looked like.