Print

Print


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.

[...snip...]

> 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.

Cheers,
Martin