Open cthomasdta opened 10 months ago
Thanks @cthomasdta! The proposal made sense to me when you posted it on the TEI-L. Considering how to implement, I think it doesn't make sense to add language to att.dimensions since that's designated for physical dimensions of a document. If we do this, I think we would add @scope
directly to language.
But I wonder if this is necessary? We have textLang, which seems to include simple verbal explanations of the languages in a document. https://tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-textLang.html
Comparing the use of textLang vs. @scope
on language, I do think @scope
provides a little more precision, so I endorse this proposal and think we should proceed.
I think I generally agree with @ebeshero , except to say that we want a version of the @scope
of att.handFeatures, not that of att.dimensions, anyway. My instinct is to factor out @scope
from att.handFeatures to its own class (att.impreciseScope or some such), and then ask that both <language>
and att.handFeatures claim membership in the new class.
Following the thread via TEI Mailing starting here List https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;dea9ab8d.2311, we propose to allow
@scope
in//profileDesc/langUsage/language
to annotate thesole
/major
/minor
language used in a document.The existing
@usage
attribute is not sufficient here, especially since %-Values are hard to determine with the exactitude the attribute use seems to be suggesting, and can hardly be determined with some degree of reliability at all before the text is transcribed. But it would be no problem, and also be efficient because we use an existing attribute and its proposed values, if the@scope
attribute was allowed here, with its values"sole"
,"major"
and"minor"
.To quote from my initial message via TEI-L: