Keith Handley asks:
>1. Why does the <group> element not accept a "type" attribute?
As originally envisaged, the <group> element is simply a convenience for
allowing groups of texts to be treated as distinct units within another
text. It's not intended to carry anything other than this grouping
semantic. If you want to say something about what *type* of text it is,
you need to convey this some other way -- using the text classification
features in the header for example. If you want to identify
something-made-up-of-texts which is different from some other
thing-made-up-of-texts you need to invent some new tags (using the
>2. Why does the <div> element require a sub-element at all?
>I can imagine that if one is looking to describe a complete document,
>then any <div> would have to contain some sub-element, but I am
>creating a document, and some of the <div>s don't yet have any
>content. That's what brought this up.
Ah. Well, yes, the <div> element is intended to describe a component of
an existing document, so it must have *some* content. It's a logical
division of a document, which to my naive mind suggests it's got
something in it, even if it's only a heading.
You can however have empty paragraphs. When I'm creating TEI conformant
documents and want to tag the structure in advance, I tend to do things
<div id=num><head>Not yet written section on numerology</head>
<div id=frt><head>Not yet written section on fruit</head>
>And thanks to everybody who put the Guidelines together.
Nice to know it's appreciated!