[tei-council] List @type musings

[Fabio Ciotti]

Sorry if I jump into the debate late, I was in a sort of unwired
vacation last days...

>> fair point. i might riposte that we need a new attribute on
>> list (comparable to @place), to contain “numbered” and
>> “bulleted”, keeping @rend for “shinygoldbullets” or
>> “romannumbersincurlybraces”
>
> And what would that first attribute be holding? the 'type' of
> list? *ducks in case MartinH throws anything*
>

mmhh this observation prompts me to say (as I said during the
discussion in Oxford) that there is more than a simple rendtional
distinction in the difference between a (anyway) numbered list (a
sequence) and a (anyway) bulleted one (a set or bag in rdf term)...
it's a typological difference at a level of abstraction higher than
that of list types we have as suggested values now. Anyway whats' done
is done, especially if it is well done :-).

As for the val list on @rend I vote for delaying any action and
discuss the item more deeply. In my experience @rend has been a sort
of basket to put any presentational feature an encoder would specify
in any lingo she likes, and especially since @style (or the more
complex @rendition) is available for expressing performative and
formal style expression I think it should be as free as possible. The
better way would be to give some hints in prose probably where it can
halp (as in this case).

And +1 for refactoring local @type into model att.typed membership,
after a scrutiny of each case. Maybe the owner of the ticket could
assign the scrutiny of a bunch of cases to some sub-owners to help