LiteFinal - Revision history

LouBurnard at 13:50, 6 August 2012

2012-08-06T13:50:19Z

LouBurnard at 13:17, 6 August 2012

2012-08-06T13:17:26Z

LouBurnard at 19:45, 5 August 2012

2012-08-05T19:45:40Z

LouBurnard at 19:44, 5 August 2012

2012-08-05T19:44:21Z

LouBurnard at 14:48, 5 August 2012

2012-08-05T14:48:04Z

LouBurnard at 14:47, 5 August 2012

2012-08-05T14:47:28Z

Kshawkin: typo, escaped angle brackets

2012-08-05T14:25:33Z

typo, escaped angle brackets

LouBurnard at 13:37, 5 August 2012

2012-08-05T13:37:11Z

LouBurnard at 13:27, 5 August 2012

2012-08-05T13:27:30Z

LouBurnard at 23:08, 4 August 2012

2012-08-04T23:08:20Z

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 :: I'm surprised MH has not expressed a view on this (to my mind) reasonable proposition [LB]
 :: I think we should reconsider this once we figure a way out of the @rend vs. @style vs. @tei:style conundrum we're in. [KH]
-:: OK I haven't mentioned CSS. But I am thinking maybe a suggested list of values would be such a bad idea. [LB]
+::: ''' OK I haven't recommended CSS. But I have added a few sample values and a reference to the existence of Better Ways of Doing Things. [LB]'''
 ) In 6.2 we define q and quote but not said. My preference would be to remove quote, but if we add it we should either remove q or add said as well.
@@ Line 163: / Line 164: @@
 :: I understand Martin's objections but tend to lean towards a user-friendly, not-so-theoretically-supercoherent set of devices for Lite. <w> tastes lite. Or, conversely, its lack will litely raise eyebrows. [PB]
 :: I agree. A lack of surprises is always a good thing; especially in terms  of encouraging TEI newbies. [SY]
-::: '''OK have added &lt;w&gt; to schema: some discussion still needed [LB] '''
+::: '''OK have added &lt;w&gt; to schema; also an example of how to use it [LB] '''

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 :: I'm surprised MH has not expressed a view on this (to my mind) reasonable proposition [LB]
 :: I think we should reconsider this once we figure a way out of the @rend vs. @style vs. @tei:style conundrum we're in. [KH]
 ) In 6.2 we define q and quote but not said. My preference would be to remove quote, but if we add it we should either remove q or add said as well.

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 ) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as segmentation using < s > which we do explain.
 :: thats a very puzzling omission. it seems like a no-brainer to include it. [SR]
-:: Perhaps it was omitted because you can use <seg type="word"> (and use <seg> for all the other bits and pieces in the same way). I see <cl> and <phr>, for instance, are also missing. Perhaps the oddity here is the inclusion of <s>? [MH]
+:: Perhaps it was omitted because you can use <seg type="word"> (and use <seg> for all the other bits and pieces in the same way). I see <cl> and <phr>, for instance, are also missing. Perhaps the oddity here is the inclusion of &lt;s&gt;? [MH]
 :: I understand Martin's objections but tend to lean towards a user-friendly, not-so-theoretically-supercoherent set of devices for Lite. <w> tastes lite. Or, conversely, its lack will litely raise eyebrows. [PB]
 :: I agree. A lack of surprises is always a good thing; especially in terms  of encouraging TEI newbies. [SY]
-::: '''OK have added <w> to schema: some discussion still needed [LB] '''
+::: '''OK have added &lt;w&gt; to schema: some discussion still needed [LB] '''

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :: "maybe. not urgent?" [SR]
 ::: '''yes, I meant cross refs to rest of Lite, but looking at the list again I decided against it, since it would interrupt the narrative flow too much. I have however mentioned the hyphenation issue. [LB]'''
 ) should xml:base and xml:space be removed from the schema? Neither is discussed -- if we keep them, they must be.
@@ Line 157: / Line 159: @@
 ) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as segmentation using < s > which we do explain.
 :: thats a very puzzling omission. it seems like a no-brainer to include it. [SR]

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 ::: '''It's history... [LB]'''
-) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as segmentation using <s> which we do explain.
+) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as segmentation using < s > which we do explain.
 :: thats a very puzzling omission. it seems like a no-brainer to include it. [SR]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:47, 5 August 2012
Line 155:		Line 155:
	::: '''It's history... [LB]'''		::: '''It's history... [LB]'''

−	23) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as segmentation using ~~<~~s~~>,~~ which we do explain.	+	23) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as segmentation using <s> which we do explain.
		+	:: thats a very puzzling omission. it seems like a no-brainer to include it. [SR]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 5 August 2012
Line 155:		Line 155:
	::: '''It's history... [LB]'''		::: '''It's history... [LB]'''

−	23) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as ~~szegmentation~~ using <s>, which we do explain.	+	23) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as segmentation using <s>, which we do explain.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:37, 5 August 2012
Line 155:		Line 155:
	::: '''It's history... [LB]'''		::: '''It's history... [LB]'''

−	23) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg?	+	23) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg? The one example we have of linguistic tagging uses <seg type="lex" ana="#NP1"> which looks cumbersome beside <w ana="#NP1"> but lexical tagging/tokenisation is at least as useful and commonplace as szegmentation using <s>, which we do explain.

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 :: not now. one day [SR]
 :: I'm not sure that the LOD people would agree that having an identifier on an element in an XML document really makes something LOD.  You can point to it, but is there actually a machine-readable of an entity in the real world at that point?  Not so sure.  But I do think mentioning @ref is important. [KH]
 ) Does section 12 (on bibliographies) need expanding?
@@ Line 107: / Line 108: @@
 ) Should section 16 also contain a reference to egXML, and hence some discussion of name spaces? Should it at least explain what an ODD is?
 :: I'd drop 16.1 entirely. [SR]
-:: Unlike SPQR, I'd leave 16.1 and include a link to the USE chapter explaining that these are more elements are used for storing TEI customisations. [JC]
+:: Unlike SPQR, I'd leave 16.1 and include a link to the USE chapter explaining that there are more elements are used for storing TEI customisations. [JC]
 :: I don't want to start linking to P5: people can easily get lost.  Agree with SR. [KH]
 ::: ''' Dropping 16.1 entirely would make Lite rather useless for technical documentation, surely?  Have added a footnote earlier on to explain what a namespace is while I think about this . [LB]'''
@@ Line 121: / Line 122: @@
 :: Yes, add @facs and document very briefly (point to chapter for more information?) [JC]
 :: Agree with everyone.  [KH]
 ) Is the treatment of front and back matter too detailed? Which parts would you remove? (Me, I love it all; except maybe the list of suggested values for @types of prefatory matter)
@@ Line 126: / Line 128: @@
 :: Leave it. (But yes, otentially nuke suggested values of @type there.) [JC]
 :: The list of values for @type seems to have been derived from section 4.5 of P5 but diverged at some point.  I suggest keeping the list but resynchronizing with P5.  Will promote interoperability. [KH]
 ) Something went wrong (probably a rogue #uri) at the end of section 18 sv "index"

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:08, 4 August 2012
Line 151:		Line 151:
	:: Fine. [KH]		:: Fine. [KH]
	::: '''It's history... [LB]'''		::: '''It's history... [LB]'''
		+
		+	23) (a late addition) Would it make sense to include <w> in the section discussing pc s and seg?