Ah, thanks, Matija -- this sounds like a candidate for a short valuable
paragraph somewhere in the Guidelines, maybe even in two places.
Still, the point about coherence that Laurent makes may be understood as
referring to syntactic coherence, and I wonder if it would be judged as
worthwhile to consider making the syntax of <langUsage> a subset of the
possible syntaxes of <textLang>, i.e. to allow <textLang> to contain a
list of <language> elements, possibly typed as "main" vs. "other".
(Shooting in the dark here, without any idea of the experience or
expectations of manuscript encoders.)
On 05.04.2011 12:29, Matija Ogrin wrote:
> Dne 05.04.2011 (tor) ob 21:53 +1200 je Stuart Yeates napisal(a):
>>> That's a very good point you make here. Should not we think
>>> putting more coherence between our two language description
>>> tags? langUsage and textLang
>> I think it's more the case of coherence between our three
>> language description methods: langUsage, textLang and xml:lang
> Well, they are used for different things, aren't they?
> langUsage is about languages *within* the TEI document, but is used in
> the Header only
> xml:lang is about languages anywhere *within* the TEI document
> textLang is about languages in some text beyond (external to) the TEI