Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Lou Burnard wrote:
>> I don't know where I got the idea that it did from (well actually I 
>> do, but since he's gone home for the weekend now it seems unfair to 
>> blame Sebastian in public)
> oh, feel free...
> anyway, my error was confusing "Used by" with the content model.
> so unless we add <label> to model.phrase, slightly
> back to the drawing board of @status or @label on <edition>
I don't think it is either/or though: an element misses the opportunity 
to control the vocabulary and projects are going to want to do that. But 
editions do also need labels for content that shouldn't be an attvalue. 
So I think we are looking at both @status and <label>.

BTW. Thinking about that question of @docStatus or similar on edition 
when it comes inside bibl|biblStruct. I guess it is an ugly 
appendix-like thing in its uselessness in context. But would it be 
actively damaging: i.e. could you misuse bibl/edition/@docStatus in some 
way? Do we have other elements that either have different attribute sets 
in different parental contexts or have attributes in all contexts that 
only make sense in one?

Otherwise, and this does scare me, we might be looking at two distinct 
concepts of edition here (and hence arguably a place for two distinct 
elements): a biblEdition for describing editions in a bibliographic 
sense and a teiEdition for describing the edition of a TEI document. 
THERE be dragons.

Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Associate Professor of English
University of Lethbridge

Chair and CEO, Text Encoding Initiative (
Co-Chair, Digital Initiatives Advisory Board, Medieval Academy of America
President-elect (English), Society for Digital Humanities/Société pour l'étude des médias interactifs (
Founding Director (2003-2009), Digital Medievalist Project (

Vox: +1 403 329-2377
Fax: +1 403 382-7191 (non-confidental)
Home Page: