[tei-council] stamps

[Lou Burnard]

Well yes, omitting text was an error, and yes, avoiding the possibility 
of mixed content by requiring <ab> makes for equal inconvenience to both 
sets of people (those who want to use `<stamp>` for what it contains and 
those who want to use it for descriptions of same, not to mention the 
wretches who want both within a single element) ... so is probably to be 
preferred. We do seem to have a consensus that the current situation is 
unsatisfactory anyway!

BTW, shouldn't this conversation be going on on the ticket?



  On 25/04/13 21:02, Syd Bauman wrote:
> I'm not sure the proposed content model:
>
>    ( model.phrase | model.gLike | model.descLike)*
>
> makes sense for two reasons. One I think is just a boo-boo, so I'll
> address it later. But the other boils down to the idea that this
> change doesn't solve the problem, in the big picture.
>
> Lou correctly points out the main problem -- that it's not entirely
> clear whether <stamp> is supposed to hold the transcription of a
> stamp, or a description of it. This (IMHO) is because
> a) there is a strong desire on the part of many to transcribe what
>     has been stamped using <stamp>, and
> b) there is an example in 10.3.3 that shows it being used that way
> despite the description of <stamp> clearly saying it "contains a word
> or phrase describing a stamp".
>
> I share Paul's instinct that this is very similar to a figure, where
> one might want to describe it (<figDesc>), give a facsimile of it
> (<graphic>), or transcription of (what is written in) it
> (<floatingText>) or some combination thereof.
>
> I'm guessing that we can confine transcriptions of stamps to within
> something a lot smaller than a <floatingText>. So my instinct is to
> have something like
>    ( model.pLike | model.descLike | model.graphicLike )*
> as the content of <stamp>, with prose that discuss and examples that
> show <desc> used to describe it, <ab> used to provide a
> transcription, and <graphic> used to provide an image.
>
> This would be problematic, of course, because it would potentially
> invalidate lots of current uses of <stamp>, which often has text
> content.
>
> Speaking of which, the boo-boo I referred to above is that the
> proposed content does not include text. Since it does include
> model.gLike we can surmise that this is just an oversight, though.