Lou Burnard wrote:
> That seems like quite a bit of hardwork for your processor.
True, but that's why you paid for it :-) Where a relationship is already
expressed in the document, it's a shame to complicate the XML by adding
more code to make it explicit.
> However, it would obviously be a lot less work to classify your <gloss>
> elements by means of a @type attribute. Since <gloss> as defined
> clearly has multiple functions, I think there's a good case to be made
> for it having one, and will add one unless I hear dissenting voices
> within the next 24 hours!
Hear hear. I'm in the camp that would like @type to be universal.