>> Yes, but it leads to problem of size: it would increase the size
>> of the document by several orders of magnitude.
> I don't really see why, unless your taxonomy is massive or hugely
Well, I need to learn more about XPointers.
>> It may sound trivial, but with
>> documents up to 30 MO, I'm not sure of the consequences.
> 30 MB is not large by modern corpus standards. Any linguistic analysis
> software (or hardware) that balks at data dimensions of that order needs
> some serious revision.
Yes; this 30 MO is only the size of sub components (TEI element) in a
>> On the other hand, define a new attribute with the very
>> intended use of @ana is not satisfying neither.
> Not sure what "very intended use" means; but if you need something,and
> it isn't already there, why should defining it not besatisfying? As I've
> often remarked here -- doubtless way beyondmany readers' tolerance
> thresholds -- that's why all the sweatand toil behind the class system
> and the extension mechanisms,old and new, was invested on our behalf.
I entirely agree; I mean that defining a new attribut, for the function
@ana is design for, only for avoiding using a pointing mechanism, may
perhaps be a wrong idea.
[log in to unmask]