In my previous mail, when I referred to the data.word constraint as
possibly casual, I did not realise that in fact it comes from something
specific to the medium, that is the
no-text-where-you-may-fail-to-properly-handle-it restriction of XML/TEI.
So FWIW, I understand the need to restrict the 'lemma' attribute, and
withdraw my implicit vote on option (c) below. Option (d) sounds very
sensible in this context, cause data.word does only half the job --
after all, you may run into problems encoding even a single-word exotic
I found a nice attribute datatype list at
-- is it still current?
Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 17:16 +0100, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> The choice on which I asked for Guidance from the Council (and now ask
>> the TEI-L readership more generally) is whether we should
>> (a) continue with the existing system
>> (b) *remove* the @lemma attribute in favour of a <lemma> child
>> (c) redefine the @lemma attribute to use a different datatype which does
>> permit included spaces
> Or d) lemma information should not necessarily be encoded in the text
> stream but encoded elsewhere and pointed at using a reference.