[tei-council] add idno to att.canonical?

[Martin Holmes]

I'm OK with adding idno to att.canonical (although I really don't like 
@key spreading any further). But this use-case is going to have to be 
very carefully explained in the Guidelines, or else we'll get people 
doing this:

<idno ref="http://blah.blah"/>

Cheers,
Martin

On 14-02-24 10:26 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 24/02/14 11:28, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 2014, at 11:07, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> because some authory files have ids and also URIs and they are sometimes different, e.g. the BNF catalogue
>> coo, thats well bonkers.
>>
>> one might say you should have two <idno>, one
>> for the shelf mark in the BNF, another for the URI.
>
> One did. But the client says no, that's not the way they see things at
> the BNF.
>
> The content of the <idno> is a URI leading to an entry in the authority
> file. That entry may have a a different "canonical" URI as its content.
> It's exactly analogous to @ref on <person>
>
>