dimensions: attribute issues (mandatory @unit; @type attribute value list

[mjhawkins]

Should unit be mandatory on all files or just recommended. This is currently enforced with a schematron rule, but if we decided it was mandatory, were could instead code it as: <attDef ident="unit" usage="req" mode="change"/>

The type attribute recommends the following values. Are they all OK to include in the base schema or do we want to remove them, change some, add some more?

• binding
• folia
• leaf
• line-height
• other
• ruled
• written

[holfordm]

folia and leaf refer to the same thing, surely, so one should be deprecated. I would prefer to keep leaf.

[ElizabethGow]

I think unit should be mandatory for dimensions. Guidelines could specify appropriate units for the project/category of material, but would there be a controlled set of values for unit? If unit is mandatory, should quantity also be mandatory for the encoded dimensions? e.g.

> <dimensions type="object" unit="mm">
>  <height quantity="101">101</height>
>  <width quantity="106">106</width>
>  </dimensions>

[ElizabethGow]

folia and leaf refer to the same thing, surely, so one should be deprecated. I would prefer to keep leaf.

Leaf is my preference also

[ElizabethGow]

The current list of types is oriented around codices, and there are other relevant values. The above example uses "object" (for 3D text-bearing objects), "container" might be useful for wrappers, folders, boxes, satchels etc.. For scrolls/rolls it is helpful to know what the rolled or folded dimensions are. Other possible values include sheet, chainlines, watermark, membrane, fragment. Probably one for the authorities stage of this work!

[ElizabethGow]

NB - could this be split into two issues?

[Dr-James-Freeman]

folia and leaf refer to the same thing, surely, so one should be deprecated. I would prefer to keep leaf.

Agreed.