[osis-core] Last Schema from Spain! - <seg>

[Chris Little]

Patrick,


>> I was using seg to mark emphasized text since we lack emph.  For that 
>> purpose, it could be used just about anywhere that we can put CDATA. 
>> But perhaps a real emph element would be preferrable to using seg 
>> since seg hampers interchange.  Alternately, we could provide some 
>> standard seg types.
> 
> Just curious about the need for emph. Most text is emphasized because it 
> is different, foreign words in text, names that are special (geographic 
> for example), first time used (usually means a definition is near), etc. 
> Most of the cases I can think of are ones that we have elements that 
> would represent "why" the word is emphasized. Or is this a case where 
> all we know is that the word was emphasized (legacy text for example) 
> and don't know why?

Legacy texts are one use.  The other is simply emphasis for the sake of 
emphasis.  Such a thing does exist in texts both old and new: text that 
is rendered differently, be it italicized, strong, uppercase, 
underscored, or otherwise, simply for the purpose of emphasizing.


> Any comments on dropping key/keyRef? Was a good idea but too costly 
> (IMHO) to justify the aggravation at this level of encoding. May be an 
> issue we want to revisit in the future or if it gets fixed in XML 
> Schema. (the latter being very unlikely)

No comments from me, but I never fully undetstood their use or why we 
needed them.

--Chris