Le Monday 02 December 2002 15:32, Frederik Fouvry a ?crit: > | It looks so. However, it raises a few questions I would like Frederik to > | answer : > | > | 1) Where exactly can <personname> be used ? For that to work, it should > | really be able to appear both in : <para>, <otherdedit> and <author>. > > Parents > > These elements contain personname: (...) > articleinfo, attribution, author, (...) > olink, othercredit, para, (...)
Cool !!! > | 2) Can <email> now be a direct child of <othercredit> and <author>, which > | was not permitted in 4.1.2 ? > > (Yes; I've written this before.) Sorry, answering too quickly to email = not reading carefully enough :-( > These elements contain email: (...) > attribution, author, (...) > othercredit, para, (....) > parameter, phrase, primary, (..) Again: Cool !!! I also notice that <email> cannot be a child of <personname>. Okay. > | 3) I don't understand why you want two entities for the person and > | his/her email, as they always appear together. > > _Always_? One might do it, but if you just name someone in the > text, I'm not sure you'd always want the address? Or do you > disagree, Eric <e.bischoff at noos.fr>? ;-) Well, here it's a matter of _why_ we want those entities. As a translator, I naturally focus on CREDIT_FOR_TRANSLATORS and ROLES_OF_TRANSLATORS. But you're right, we may need them in the text as well (the authors' view). Okay, you're right, let's go for a separate email entity. > | 4) I relly want to enforce the "French system", so the reviewer, author, > | translator, etc, entities should be defined at the same level as the > | person and email entities. Would everyone agree with that ? > > I don't know what you precisely mean with "level". Well, what I don't want is entities of type (1) to be seriously enforced in a centralized file, and the rest to be left to the freedom of the various translation teams, with different systems for the French and the Duth, etc. > | 5) Would everyone agree with the following scheme (which assumes that > | <email> can be a direct child of <author> and of <othercredit>) : > > In principle, yes, but not as it is here. The emailaddress > should be separate. Fine with me. -- Journalist: "What do you think about occidental civilization?" Gandhi: "That would be an excellent idea."
