Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.

Close

#460 list/@type="unordered" is not recommended, but used often

GREEN
open
Martin Holmes
9(high)
2014-06-30
2012-10-25
Martin Holmes
No

The definition of list/@type suggests these values:

ordered
list items are numbered or lettered.
bulleted
list items are marked with a bullet or other typographic device.
simple
list items are not numbered or bulleted. [Default]
gloss
each list item glosses some term or concept, which is given by a label element preceding the list item.

However, the stylesheets are peppered with uses of "unordered" (which used to be in there, but is not any more). These should be replaced with "bulleted", presumably.

Related

Bugs: #460

Discussion

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 > >> (Page 3 of 5)
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2013-04-12

    Providence meeting: action on MH to spell out the steps of the proposal to change from @type to @rend in our recommendations and our guidelines practice, and to build in support for this in the stylesheets. On Council's approval, go ahead. Changed from Red to Amber. No objections raised at Council meeting.

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2013-04-14

    Wrote some XSLT to convert list/@type when not in egXML, and converted and committed the AB chapter as a test. This will result in all numeric character entities being resolved to their literal characters, but I don't think that will be a problem; wrote to Council to confirm they're OK with it.

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2013-04-23

    Changes have already been made in our Guidelines practice. This was the easy bit. The next stage is to come up with a proposal for changing our recommendations. Currently, we provide suggested values for @type which mix the renditional with a single justifiable type:

    ordered
        list items are numbered or lettered. 
    bulleted
        list items are marked with a bullet or other typographic device. 
    simple
        list items are not numbered or bulleted. [Default]
    gloss
        each list item glosses some term or concept, which is given by a label element preceding the list item.
    

    I recommend that we do three things:

    1. Add an attDef for @rend on <list>, and move the values "ordered", "bulleted" and "simple" into there as suggested values for @rend.

    2. Remove the suggested values for list/@type completely, leaving @type without any suggested values, but providing some examples of reasonable values in the description. I don't believe that we can come up with more than a couple of generic values for @type which have any broad application, but some instances of real values ("gloss", "ingredients", "steps" perhaps) would help to point up the difference between renditional and typological features.

    3. Clarify this distinction again in the remarks for <list>, and explain that our recommendations have changed in this respect.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2013-04-23

    Sorry, I think I may be repeating myself, but just for the record, I
    really don't like "ordered". In formal linguistics all lists are
    ordered, that's the definition of a list (otherwise it's a bag). What's
    wrong with "numbered"? You will say that (a) (b) (c) are not numbers,
    but surely they are being used as such, just like "i", "ii", "iii". If
    you insist, how about "sequenced"?

    On 23/04/13 19:29, Martin Holmes wrote:

    Changes have already been made in our Guidelines practice. This was
    the easy bit. The next stage is to come up with a proposal for
    changing our recommendations. Currently, we provide suggested values
    for @type which mix the renditional with a single justifiable type:

    ordered
    list items are numbered or lettered.
    bulleted
    list items are marked with a bullet or other typographic device.
    simple
    list items are not numbered or bulleted. [Default]
    gloss
    each list item glosses some term or concept, which is given by a label element preceding the list item.

    I recommend that we do three things:

    1.

    Add an attDef for @rend on |<list>|, and move the values
    "ordered", "bulleted" and "simple" into there as suggested values
    for @rend.
    

    2.

    Remove the suggested values for list/@type completely, leaving
    @type without any suggested values, but providing some examples of
    reasonable values in the description. I don't believe that we can
    come up with more than a couple of generic values for @type which
    have any broad application, but some instances of real values
    ("gloss", "ingredients", "steps" perhaps) would help to point up
    the difference between renditional and typological features.
    

    3.

    Clarify this distinction again in the remarks for |<list>|, and
    explain that our recommendations have changed in this respect.
    

    [bugs:#460] http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/460/
    list/@type="unordered" is not recommended, but used often

    Status: open
    Labels: XSLT stylesheets
    Created: Thu Oct 25, 2012 07:55 PM UTC by Martin Holmes
    Last Updated: Sun Apr 14, 2013 03:20 AM UTC
    Owner: Martin Holmes

    The definition of list/@type suggests these values:

    ordered
    list items are numbered or lettered.
    bulleted
    list items are marked with a bullet or other typographic device.
    simple
    list items are not numbered or bulleted. [Default]
    gloss
    each list item glosses some term or concept, which is given by a label
    element preceding the list item.

    However, the stylesheets are peppered with uses of "unordered" (which
    used to be in there, but is not any more). These should be replaced
    with "bulleted", presumably.


    Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
    https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/460/

    To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
    https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/

     

    Related

    Bugs: #460

    • Martin Holmes
      Martin Holmes
      2013-04-23

      I don't care one way or the other whether the term is "ordered" or "numbered". We have "ordered" all over the place, so that's what I stuck with. My main concern is that whatever we call them, they're renditional and not typological.

       
  • • Add an attDef for @rend on <list>, and move the values "ordered", "bulleted" and "simple" into there as suggested values for @rend.

    an attDef mode="change", that is :-}

    • Remove the suggested values for list/@type completely, leaving @type without any suggested values, but providing some examples of reasonable values in the description. I don't believe that we can come up with more than a couple of generic values for @type which have any broad application, but some instances of real values ("gloss", "ingredients", "steps" perhaps) would help to point up the difference between renditional and typological features.

    fair enough. "ingredients", "dramatis_personae", "syllogism" (I borrow from EEBO)

    --
    Sebastian Rahtz
    Director (Research) of Academic IT
    University of Oxford IT Services
    13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

     
    Last edit: Kevin Hawkins 2013-04-25
    • Martin Holmes
      Martin Holmes
      2013-04-23

      Won't <list type="dramatis_personae"> collide with <castList>?

       
  • Brett Barney
    Brett Barney
    2013-04-23

    Of "ordered," "numbered," and "sequenced," I think "ordered" is the most apt. It seems to me irrelevant whether some specialized domain attaches a restricted meaning to a term (and I'm not convinced, anyway, that "formal linguistics" has a consensus opinion about the nature of lists). Besides the problem with "numbered" that Lou anticipates (that the "numbers" sometimes aren't), it re-introduces rendition into the issue of typology. It's easy enough to think of lists whose items aren't marked by letters, numbers, or anything else but are still ordered. And a good case could be made that lots of lists aren't ordered--my shopping list, for example. "Sequenced" strikes me as just a synonym for "ordered."

     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2013-04-23

    One consideration here is minimizing the impact on users. Many will have to consider switching their use of @type to @rend; if we can't agree on what to call what-used-to-be-ordered, shouldn't we just stick with what we have, and minimize the burden?

     
  • On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:32, Martin Holmes martindholmes@users.sf.net
    wrote:

    Won't <list type="dramatis_personae"> collide with <castList>?

    true. bit misleading.

    Sebastian Rahtz
    Director (Research) of Academic IT
    University of Oxford IT Services
    13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

     
    Last edit: Kevin Hawkins 2013-04-25
<< < 1 2 3 4 5 > >> (Page 3 of 5)