Dot Porter wrote:
> I am wondering vaguely if decoNote should be added to model.noteLike.
> It seems to me that decoNote is syntactic sugar for
> note@type='decoration', in which case it should be able to go where a
> regular note can go.
That's a nonsequitur. The reason for having decoNote at all (as with
other xxxNotes) is precisely that it *doesn't* go where other notes go.
It's specialised as to location as well as content -- it's a constituent
of <decoDesc> and should not be found floating around inside <p>s elsewhere.
> This comes up because I would like to be able to
> place decoNote inside p, which I can't do at the moment. I could just
> use note@type='decoration', but I'd rather use the note defined
> specifically for describing decorations.
But it's not just a note for describing decorations. It's for describing
a particular category of decoration within a structured summary
description of the decorative aspects of a manuscript.
> Thoughts? Objections to submitting this as a feature request?
I've certainly no objection of course to your making this feature
request. Maybe others will agree with you. But I don't think I do.