[tei-council] wot not choice?

[Lou Burnard]

dear laurent

thanks for the rapid and re-assuring reply ! but you don't address my 
question "why not mention using <choice>"

surely at the least there should be an example of doing so for e.g. a 
werner-style transcription?

lou

  On 04/05/13 12:38, Laurent Romary wrote:
> [Let us not discuss attributes vs. text: I take it as part of the TEI 
> gospel that plain text should not go in attributes]
>
> Well. I do not remember using @orig at all in all my dictionary life, 
> so I am not in the best position to defend it. In my work with Werner, 
> we were actually keeping the original text for things like grammatical 
> descriptors and used @norm to provide a symbol.
>
> So yes. Let's have a feature request.
>
> Laurent
>
>
> Le 4 mai 2013 à 12:34, Lou Burnard a écrit :
>
>> For my sins, I have been re-reading the dictionary chapter (I am 
>> supposed to be giving a talk about it next week)
>> and am ASTONISHED to find that the section about "preserving the 
>> lexical and the typographic view"
>>
>> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/DI.html#DIMVAV
>>
>> nowhere mentions the possibility of using <choice> ... Even more 
>> astonishing, it recommends using an attribute @orig to supply  "the 
>> original form" which makes it seem like the war on attributes never 
>> took place.
>>
>> This seems such a blatant inconsistency I cannot believe I am the 
>> first person to notice it. Can anyone defend this attribute ? At the 
>> very least there should be some warning about the consequences of 
>> adopting it if your original source contains things like <g>,  to say 
>> nothing of mentioning the use of <choice> as a much saner mechanism.
>>
>>
>
> Laurent Romary
> INRIA & HUB-IDSL
> laurent.romary at inria.fr <mailto:laurent.romary at inria.fr>
>
>
>