#386 adapt defintion of <span> to take better wording from 17.3

AMBER
closed
5
2013-01-15
2012-09-19
No

This task branched off of 'make attributes from and to (as pointers) part of a class - ID: 3496494.'

Adapt the definition of <span> based on the text of 17.3, keeping in mind 3496494, which will rationalize the use of @to and @from on many elements, including <span>

Discussion

  • The definition of <span> is simply "associates an interpretative annotation directly with a span of text."

    I think what I want out of a clarification of <span> is more explicit explanation that its purpose is to neatly avoid the problem of overlapping hierarchies/improper nesting by pointing to the beginning and end of a span of text, rather than simply marking them inline (if that is indeed correct).

    At first glance (to a very unsophisticated encoder like me), it seems totally backwards that the content of <span> is not actually the pertinent span of text itself, but instead the thing you want to say about it. It's obvious, upon reflection, that there is a good reason for this, but I think it would help encoders keep it straight if we lay this bare.

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2013-01-08

    Although submitter, assigning to rwelzenb and setting group AMBER since it seems straightforward to me but needs agreement from Council as to the change of definition.

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2013-01-08

    • milestone: --> AMBER
    • assigned_to: nobody --> rwelzenb
     
  • Martin Holmes
    Martin Holmes
    2013-01-08

    I think this might overlap substantially with Lou's completed ticket:

    <http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3526975>

     
  • This does overlap to some extent with 3526975, by way of 3496494

    Across these tickets there is discussion going on mostly about the definitions of @to and @from as they are used with <span>. Kevin has proposed revisions to these attributes in 3496494 and I think these help significantly.

    Distinct from the others, this ticket deals specifically with the definition of <span>, which I found confusing. However, upon reflection, I think the existing definition of <span> is fine as it is, especially in light of the recent significant clarifications to the definitions and prose explaining its attributes.

    Alternatives that I came up with were all less elegant and no clearer than the original:

    <span> marks an interpretative annotation and associates it directly with a span of text.

    <span> identifies an interpretive annotation by its association to
    a span of text

    <span> identifies a span of text associated with an interpretive annotation

    So, I propose to close this ticket and leave <span> alone.

     
    • status: open --> closed