[tei-council] proof of concept of i18n work

[Kevin Hawkins]

On 11/19/2013 4:04 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> On 11/17/2013 6:03 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> On 17/11/13 21:35, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> On 17 Nov 2013, at 21:25, Lou Burnard<lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it would be more sensible to trawl through the valDescs for any
>>>> that are actually useful before doing any work on dating them.
>>>>
>>>> I strongly suspect the number is very small indeed -- most of them
>>>> are a
>>>> hangover from the days before we had datatyping
>>> it may be more than you think, over 150. But I agree, many are redundant
>>> nowadays.
>>> --
>>
>> I will volunteer to go through killing all of them, if you like. I've
>> had a look and so far I don't see any that are not either redundant
>> (e.g. " the name of a module" for attDef/@module duh ) or contain vague
>> mutterings that should be transferred to<remarks> or zapped.
>
> I hadn't understood the history here with datatyping and so am now more
> inclined toward this option than I was previously. If we do get rid of
> them, we should add a note to tcw20 saying not to add <valDesc> in the
> future. Do we also want to "no longer recommend" this element (per our
> policy in tcw27) in the tagdocs module?

I've just modified 
http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw20.xml to say not to 
use <valDesc> in element specs at this time (but to use <datatype> when 
appropriate).

--Kevin