Michael Beddow wrote:
There are, however, some
> conceptual unclarities in the discussion of <form> in the P4 Guidelines,
> reflected in some aspects of the content model, which I had hoped the
> revision would address. Apparently not
. Anyway, what you are seeing here is
> exactly what you would see if you had taken a P4 DTD and tran-ified it into
> A W3C schema and so not a P5 issue as such.
Which is all that the current draft claims to be.
> More generally: have the changes made to/proposed for the print dictionaries
> ever been stated, let alone explained or discussed, anywhere accessible to
> interested parties?
No, I am afraid not. The current chapter is the result of some quick
hacking around to get it into P5 and some experimentation with the new
features offered by the ODD format. As you note, the diachrony thing is
present for the latter purpose only.
> The dictionaries section in the Alpha guidelines release is regrettably a
> mess, full of rendering problems which are most likely down to things in the
> updated source rather than the stylesheet. It mainly consists mainly of a
> badly jumbled-up versions of the old chapter, inserspersed with chunks of
> semi-digested ODD, with a few intended alterations to the P5 text version
> (mainly trivial or systematic -- which is my clumsy way of saying " dictated
> by the transition to schemas. Xpointers etc") identifiable by
> high-frequency typos and rather problematic English usage, though the
> Editors will deal with that in due course.
Thank you for that, at least -- we will certainly do our best! But
specific examples and suggestions are always helpful, as in getting
problems in the layout fixed. In his defence, I don't think Laurentwould
remotely claim to have finished work on the chapter, and we probably (in
retrospect) should not have built it into the current version of P5 in
its current state. There were good technical reasons at the time for
doing so -- we were using it to test the new 0DD extension methods --
but we should have gone back over the text to make sure it was
acceptable before letting it off the kitchen table.
The one thing I can make out for
> sure is that <eg> has been renamed to <dicteg> presumably to remove the
> clash with <eg> in the documentation tagset.
That's right. And maybe it should have been renamed <cit> actually...
> I must say that I, and possibly others who spend a lot of time encoding
> dictionaries, would welcome a little more public information about what has
> been going on in this neck of the P5 woods.
Are you offering to co-ordinate some activity in this area? That would
be really helpful -- a group of experts in the domain that could easily
reach agreement on what needs changing from P4 -- if anything -- and
propose appropriate P5-compatible ways of achieving them. Please make
> Michael Beddow