Additional prose and documentation fixes for att.linguistic

[bansp]

This is to deliver on the promise given in ticket #1670, concerning the documentation of the freshly added class att.linguistic. I attempted to intervene inside chapter 14 only minimally and put most of the prose into a subsection (14.4.2). Modified the individual specs a bit as well.

The proposed changes can be inspected at LingSIG Jenkins pages:

• new section, 14.4.2
• att.linguistic
• pc spec
• w spec
• diff of the pull request (it should mention 4 modified files; if the number is greater, please ping Piotr for a repository sync)

[bansp]

Given that, as seen in the TEI-L today and as I know from off-list communication, these attributes are found by some to be quite a useful device, would it be outrageous to suggest that someone have a look at the proposed text to see if it contains many swearwords (or not) and/or if it appears to be on-topic, and then, that that person kindly merges the changes, to be reviewed in the context of the rest of the Guidelines, by the "end users"? :-)

And on a slightly more serious note, I would dearly like to avoid a situation whereby Peter becomes a victim of his kindness towards his LingSIG colleagues, and be forced into the role of a reviewer of a text that addresses something outside of his passion / immediate interests. I am now wondering if I should have just gone and merged the changes, and only post an informative issue about that, after the fact. Because it's just a follow-up on the previous ticket that we didn't write back then, when we didn't know whether the "word attributes" issue would be accepted by the Council and if so, to what extent.

Perhaps, Council dear, we can come to some operative conclusions for the future, like: "documentation that follows up on a previously accepted and implemented issue can be merged without a prolonged 'maturation' period, and thus without causing unnecessary grief and pull-request-maintenance issues"? Wouldn't that simplify things a bit? :-)

[peterstadler]

Just read through it with great pleasure, many thanks @bansp

Just spotted two tiny typos which I'll fix in a subsequent commit.

[bansp]

Thank you very much, Peter!