[tei-council] sluice your glosses

[Lou Burnard]

On 28/02/13 12:25, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> I incline to think that lou is problematising this. Give an element or attribute a <desc> field,
> and let the ODD author put in there whatever is needed to explain it to the user. if
> that involves prefixing it "(line break)", that's fine by me.
>

There is a distinction between explaining the rationale for a name, and 
describing the ways that the thing named should be used.  And isn't it a 
good idea to enforce some discipline about always putting the expansion 
in parens at the start?

> Norm Walsh doesn't feel the need at http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/lhs.html
> to be explicit that "lhs" stands for left hand side", it is better done in his "The left-hand side of an EBNF production"
>

... which means that when you translate "the left hand side of an EBNF 
production" into French you are completely stumped as to why this thing 
is called "lhs"


> if we didn't have <gloss>, would anyone ever ask for it?
> --

yes. me. But I am somewhat puzzled. Are you in favour of

(a) adding more waffle into the existing <gloss>es as and when someone 
says they are puzzled by their meanings
(b) removing all existing <gloss>es entirely
(c) merging existing <gloss>es into their sibling <desc>s
(d) restricting  <gloss>es to expansions and moving any useful waffle 
elsewhere?