[tei-council] Should Roma be doing this?

[Paul F. Schaffner]

Since I always worry first about how out of step our practice is...
Looking only at our most recent 1,000 uses of <list @type, I see that
none of them is really renditional. But then, we don't worry too
much about rendition: I think my working assumption is that there
are basically two rends of list, <ul> and <dl>, and that they are
distinguishable by their content models (if it contains <label>
it's <dl>, etc.).

Here are the actual @types I find. They don't all make sense to me,
and not all belong to the 'list of ...' genus, and some of them have
renditional implications, but none specifies rendition per se.

<LIST TYPE="anagram">

    This is for the common form that looks like this:

    o Torchwood
    o anagram: Doctor Who

    Could be done with <seg>s instead, I suppose.

<LIST TYPE="dramatis personae">

    We use this in place of <castlist>

<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<LIST TYPE="prosyllogism">

    o All oceans are wet
    o The Atlantic is an ocean
    o ERGO the Atlantic is wet.

<LIST TYPE="analogy">

   ??

<LIST TYPE="litany">

    o St. Jude pray for us
    o St. Athanasius pray for

<LIST TYPE="genealogy">

    For capturing family trees as nested lists.

<LIST TYPE="index">
<LIST TYPE="officers">
<LIST TYPE="observations">
<LIST TYPE="propositions">
<LIST TYPE="articles">

    The 'list of..." type.
    This use is rare: we tend to get rid of it in favor of
    a superordinate <div type="list of ..." >

<LIST TYPE="definitions">

    This looks suspiciously like a glossary (<dl>) type list
    but maybe not.

So does this avoidance of the renditional put us (for once) ahead
of the curve?

pfs




On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, James Cummings wrote:

> I thought this sounded familiar ;-)
>
> http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/P6-dev
> Is the page by the way of things we've decided are too disruptive for P5.
>
> James
>
>
>
> --
> Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
>
> Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
> When we discussed this very question at the last f2f, we came to
> precisely this conclusion (that all the functions of @type are
> renditional [and in fact effectively HTML-renditional] and should
> therefore be moved to @rend and family, thereby freeing up @type if
> anyone wants to typologize lists in ways that aren't currently catered
> for), but it was generally agreed that this would be too disruptive, and
> so we started a page somewhere on the Wiki of decisions to be deferred
> for P6.
>
> The one decision we did make was to standardize on one of
> "numbered"|"ordered" (probably to the former, but I don't remember and
> haven't checked the minutes).
>
> I've been a bit bemused by the fact that we've now revisited this
> question on the list at least twice since Oxford. I'm not sure we're
> *ever* going to agree to break tei:list this badly before P6, are we?
>
> G
>
> On 2013-04-08 12:26, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2013, at 11:23, James Cummings <james.cummings at it.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>   I also agree that order being important (or not) is something
>>> that should be able to be captured (@ordered as a boolean?) but
>>> think it is separate from the classification.  My <list
>>> type="recipeSteps"> classifies what type of list it is, but
>>> *also* has a requirement that order is important.
>>>
>>> Whether these are numbered steps or bulleted is entirely a
>>> rendering thing in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>> effectively, we're moving the currently widely used set of @type values
>> into @rend, then. Which is very reasonable. But _highly_ disruptive
>> to many many existing projects and tools.
>>
>> discuss at f2f, sure. but lets be wary of this eating up a lot to time,
>> cos the implications are scary.
>> --
>> Sebastian Rahtz
>> Director (Research) of Academic IT
>> University of Oxford IT Services
>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>
>
> --
> Dr Gabriel BODARD
> Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
>
> Digital Humanities
> King's College London
> Boris Karloff Building
> 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/
>
> --
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
> -- 
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schaffner | PFSchaffner at umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190
--------------------------------------------------------------------