Re: [tei-council] Freeze on October 1

Thanks for the corrections, Lou. That’s very helpful. I’ll nitpick back at just one of them below...

On Sep 28, 2015, at 11:40 , Lou Burnard wrote:

On 28/09/15 14:15, Hugh Cayless wrote:

...

I will be integrating the new critical apparatus changes later this morning. Just a few nit picking comments on these:

1. The original reading

marked by an <gi>app</gi> element; each reading is given in a <gi>rdg</gi>element; if it is - desired to single out one reading as preferred, it may be tagged <gi>lem</gi>:

was chosen after prolonged agitation from TEI users who didn't believe in "lem" as distinct from "rdg". The proposed revision is

marked by an <gi>app</gi> element; the preferred (or base) reading is tagged with <gi>lem</gi>; + each reading is given in a <gi>rdg</gi>element:

This renegues on our earlier decision by implying that a lem is required. I think this revision should probably just be reverted.

This is in the section on parallel segmentation. I do obviously agree that a <lem> isn’t *required*, but I think the current prose pushes it too much into the background. You *should* mark a reading as belonging to the base text, partly because otherwise there’s no basis other than order for choosing which one to display in your text, but mainly because you should not pretend that you don’t have a base text. You do unless every single word is part of an app entry. I would argue that it’s best practice to use <lem> for most editions and that therefore it should come first—though I’m happy to note that it’s optional.

2. "Textual variation may manifest in many ways." I think "manifest" needs an object: insert "itself" before "in many ways".

3. "An omission in on witness may" -> "An omission in one witness may"

4. "are a harder phenomenon" -> "are harder" or "constitute a harder phenomenon" (to avoid plural verb with singular complement)

5. The additional constraints in <ab> etc. remind me of why this whole thing makes me feel uneasy: because we really want to do constraints on *members of the class model.pLike* but the architecture doesn't permit it. I have no solution to propose though.

I feel the same. It’s hideous. I like that it’s hideous though, because I hope that will spur us to fix it.

...

Does anyone need help getting their work merged into master before Thursday? Please let me know!

I need a reminder of how to do "svn up" :-(

git pull origin master (though it sounds like you already figured it out)

...

Incidentally, I’ve just pushed a change to the Stylesheets that I think will fix the goofy ODD validation error we’ve been seeing. Didn’t seem to break any tests.

What error? The only change I can see is something to do with namespaces in schematron rules -- is that the one you mean?

Yeah, I stopped it putting the xsl namespace in Schematron files.

-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived