Why `<gi>` and `<att>` but not `<val>`? #19

Closed
martindholmes opened this Issue Jun 4, 2015 · 5 comments

Projects

None yet

5 participants

@martindholmes
Contributor

I could understand Simple not having any of these three elements, but to have two and not the third seems strange; is there a reason for it? I typically use all three when documenting encoding practices.

@sydb
Member
sydb commented Jun 4, 2015
@lb42
Member
lb42 commented Jun 4, 2015

I cannot see any justification for having any of them in simple, unless there has been some mission creep...

@martindholmes
Contributor

I think you'd use them in encodingDesc, and Simple's approach has been (I think) largely to leave the header alone. Paul is right, though: <tag> is missing too.

@martinmueller39
Contributor

That seems right to me.

From: Martin Holmes <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: TEIC/TEI-Simple <reply@reply.github.commailto:reply@reply.github.com>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 5:17 PM
To: TEIC/TEI-Simple <TEI-Simple@noreply.github.commailto:TEI-Simple@noreply.github.com>
Subject: [TEI-Simple] Why <gi> and <att> but not <val>? (#19)

I could understand Simple not having any of these three elements, but to have two and not the third seems strange; is there a reason for it? I typically use all three when documenting encoding practices.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/TEIC/TEI-Simple/issues/19.

@sebastianrahtz
Member

I will add these extras to the list of elements only allowed in the header

@sebastianrahtz sebastianrahtz added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 7, 2015
@sebastianrahtz sebastianrahtz deal with #16, #17, #19, #20; rethinking list of headeronly elements …
…is done; fixed Schematron check of headeronly so that it works
c1182a7
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment