Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo

Close

#33 <note> needs to be permitted anywhere

CO
closed
Lou Burnard
8
2007-02-17
2004-09-05
Syd Bauman
No

The placement of <note> elements seems to be too
restrictive. E.g., you can place a <note> as a child of
<head>, but not in as a child of <opener>, <closer>, or
<dateline>; you can place a <note> as a child of
<body>, but not of <front> or <back>. Since a <note>
may well be used to comment on the encoding of a
document, rather than the textual features of the
document being encoded, <note> should be permitted just
about anywhere. The same is true for <anchor>, since
one may want to put only the <anchor> at the spot of
interest, and the <note> elsewhere.

Discussion

    • assigned_to: nobody --> sbauman
     
  • Natasha Smith
    Natasha Smith
    2004-09-20

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1124399

    I fully support this proposal and would like to move it to the
    highest priority group of issues.

     
  • Natasha Smith
    Natasha Smith
    2004-09-20

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1124399

    I fully support this proposal and would like to move it to the
    highest priority group of issues.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2004-09-22

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146

    <anchor> is already, I think, permitted anywhere, or at least
    wherever tei.incl is permitted.

    I am less convinced of the wisdom of allowing <note>
    everywhere, because the "point of attachment" for a note is
    part of its semantics. If you allow it anywhere, then its point
    of attachment becomes dubious. For example, if a note
    occured between say </div2> and <div2> then its point of
    attachment would presumably be the parent <div1>. I bet
    several people would find that counter-intuitive.

    However, I think there is a good case to be made for defining
    a new class (shall we call it tei.pervasive?) for content
    bearing elements that we want to allow almost anywhere.
    Then we just have to decide what "almost" means...

    And finally, may I record my disquiet with the suggestion that
    a <note> may be used to comment on the encoding of a
    document. If this means what I think it means, why is it not
    done with an XML comment?

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2004-09-24

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=612078

    I think I'd like to be able to comment on XML encoding not in
    an xml comment. Mostly because some users systems do not
    retain the comments when processed (as the spec. allows).
    Now if the processing was always in my control, that would
    be a different matter.

    -James

     
  • Syd Bauman
    Syd Bauman
    2004-10-12

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=686243

    <anchor> is indeed a member of the include model-class
    ("m.Incl" in P4, "tei.Incl" in P5). It's hard to see why a
    <note> should not be permitted where an <anchor> is. Why is
    the point of attachment of a <note> in
    //TEI.2/text/back/div[@type="notes"] that points to an
    <anchor> that appears between "</div2>" and "<div2>" more
    dubious than one that occurs between those tags directly?

    I'm also not entirely sure why a <note> between "</div2>"
    and "<div2>" is dubious in the first place. It's a child of
    <div1> with a <div2> as its left sibling and a <div2> as its
    right sibling. If it has no target= attribute indicating a
    point of attachment, then there is some ambiguity as to
    whether or not it is "attached" to the preceding <div2> or
    not, but the same is true when a <note> is encoded inside a
    <p> (especially if surrounded by whitespace :-). While there
    is a popular convention that permits thinking of the <note>
    as being "attached" to the preceding textual unit (and
    whether that unit is a word, phrase, clause, or sentence can
    often be ambiguous), it is only a convention.

    And Lou if you feel disquiet at the idea of a <note> being
    used to comment on the encoding of a document, you must feel
    an awful lot of conflict, too. Besides the fact that the
    Guidelines recommend it (17.1.1), it was you who taught me
    (circa early 2002) that one can't use an XML comment for
    this purpose as it won't survive many kinds of XML processing.

     
  • Syd Bauman
    Syd Bauman
    2006-09-25

    • priority: 5 --> 8
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2006-12-02

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146
    Originator: NO

    Well, I suppose there's no home in trying to add <note> to model.global and watching to see what breaks!

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2007-02-01

    • milestone: --> CO
    • assigned_to: sbauman --> louburnard
     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=222320
    Originator: NO

    I had the impression we already decided on this and agreed to implement it? What is the problem with adding it to model.global and fix what breaks?

    Christian

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2007-02-17

    • status: open --> closed
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2007-02-17

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=1021146
    Originator: NO

    I have duly removed <note> from all its current model classes except model.noteLike, and redefined the latter as a subclass of model.global. I also needed to change content models of <person> and <msItem> which referenced the element directly. And added a new testfile testglobals for good measure.