examples and suggested values of unit= don’t match

[sydb]

The “suggested values include” for @unit of att.citing includes the values volume and page. But I just found that there are 11 instances of unit="pp" and 11 instances of unit="vol" on //egXML//biblScope | //egXML//citedRange.

My instinct is that the examples are wrong, the “suggested values include” list is correct, and the examples should just be fixed without further ado.

[lb42]

my instinct otoh is that pp and vol.are pretty widely used and recognised in the world of bibliography and that "suggested" shouldnot ean "compulsory"

[sydb]

So your suggestion, then (I hope) is to change the suggested values list to have "pp" and "vol". While I mildly prefer "page" and "volume", I really don’t care much. But I think it is a very bad idea to suggest A and exemplify B. (While TEI is specifically not asserting that use of "page" as opposed to "pp" is cumpulsory for TEI conformance, we are suggesting that “if you want to express that a cited range is measured in pages, you should use "page" so that everyone (pardon the pun) is on the same page”.)

[martindholmes]

I think that once we have propagated a suggested values list, we should think very carefully before undermining it. We should fix the examples to be consistent with our suggested list, unless we can find in the history that our intention was in fact the reverse. There could be Stylesheet implications for changing a suggested valList too.

[lb42]

I stand by the assertion that "vol" and "pp" are widely used and appropriate. Is it not possible that they were mistakenly removed from the valList when it was closed ?

[hcayless]

Council subgroup agrees with @sydb. Nothing prevents TEI users from using 'vol' or 'pp', but we should keep the suggested values simple, and make our examples consistent where practical.

[ebeshero]

closing with this commit: 9581121