Examples of the use of the <g> element throughout the Guidelines (e.g., in Expansion of Abbreviation Including Symbol/Characters) make ubiquitous use of the "type" attribute to gloss the glyph in question. Although the "type" attribute is legal in TEI, nowhere in the TEI Guidelines do we find such usage; rather, the TEI envisions the use of a "ref" attribute, containing an IDREF for a <glyph> element somewhere else in the file or document collection wherein the glyph is defined. Should EpiDoc revise usage guidance and XSLT processing to better align itself with what seems to be normative TEI practice? </glyph></g>
Can we confirm whether Poli is still willing to do this?
To sumarise, what is needed for this ticket is to convene a small sprint to make a decision about (a) recommendations, and (b) whether EpiDoc should be hosting any lists of glyph-types in the Guidelines/Repo/Odd vel sim., or projects should be responsible for their own authority lists.
At the very least EFES should (and I think does) have a short glyph list.
Ideally we need somebody to take ownership of this ticket, mostly for administrative/social purposes. Any volunteers?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HY1IJzwPYkJBltc1UZHZBbWxFlwDX6tshCYf86cKCd4/edit#
Notes (some replicating this conversation can be found in this document, currently being updated)
this branch contains the changes discussed here
https://github.com/EpiDoc/Stylesheets/tree/g
this commit
https://github.com/EpiDoc/Stylesheets/commit/5b66e0afa866d6ab4bde6ec536bbbbeba564ec76
adds support for
`
`
https://github.com/EpiDoc/Stylesheets/pull/4
Guidelines edits for this ticket
https://sourceforge.net/p/epidoc/code/2759/
note that I added a template to make a table from the charDecl.xml included with the XSLT. This points to the branch at the moment.